9/11 derail: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[nioc]

Or a sociopathically delusional one.
In case of a global Ebola outbreak, who gives a fuck about our little money experiment?

History shows that civilization doesn't stop due to global anomalies, wars, disease, financial metldowns etc. Neither will Bitcoin - which is far more than our "little money experiment". Show will go on - as always. The only question is whether we'll be part of the show or not...

Sound money will be weapons, ammo, canned food and medicines. The odds for survival in such a situation are more in favour of the most cruel and fittest men than in favour a bunch of bitcoin nerds like you and me, so pray your gods we will never have to witness such a catastrophic event in our lifetime.

Guns and canned food won't really save one from a pandemic virus. Neither will medicine (for other stuff).

True and in any catastrophic event , common things required for sustaining life will be much valuable than any crypto.

And how will you buy them, if government has nullified -by law- the value of paper currency in favor of electronic currencies, as to "prevent people from spreading the virus"?

Either gold/silver, or cryptos. Or plain' old bartering of one thing with another. We'll see how it goes, if it ever materializes as a global eventuality. Let's hope that it doesn't though.

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

[1714939875]

1714939875

[1714939875]

1714939875

[1714939875]

1714939875

[1714939875]

1714939875

[1714939875]

1714939875

[1714939875]

1714939875

[AlexGR]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

But sweaty hands do touch coins and paper notes - even if that sweat is imperceptible. Also people sneeze or exhale small droplets with their exhalation, so things tend to get airborne*.

There are two assumptions right now:

1. It is not airborne
2. It is not transmitted in the incubation period

...neither assumption is very strong.

* It could also be made airborne intentionally: http://rt.com/news/178992-ebola-biological-weapon-terrorists

The original author was talking 30-60% population reduction, which I can't see happening without subsequent mass fear, hiding, suspicion, riots, revolts, pillaging and the like.

The factors you mention are "extra". Mortality rate through the virus alone is 60%.

We'll see how this story develops and whether it affects cash being banned at some stage during the next months / years. If this happens, it also has the potential to create a massive boom in the anon-currencies, as they are better equipped to replace cash than Bitcoin due to their privacy.

[rpietila]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.)

[SlipperySlope]

Here is the latest bitcoin adjusted transaction quantity graph with log scale and 7-day moving average. Note the transaction quantity in the month of August  is now above May levels. The Bitstamp bitcoin price in May peaked at $683.

[BowieMan]

Here is the latest bitcoin adjusted transaction quantity graph with log scale and 7-day moving average. Note the transaction quantity in the month of August  is now above May levels. The Bitstamp bitcoin price in May peaked at $683.

We really seem to be on an upswing what adoption is concerned. I think over the summer a lot of people got to know Bitcoin or talked about it with friends. Now that the summer is nearing its end, and people will soon get back from their holidays, the demand may increase again.

[ArticMine]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

But sweaty hands do touch coins and paper notes - even if that sweat is imperceptible. Also people sneeze or exhale small droplets with their exhalation, so things tend to get airborne*.

There are two assumptions right now:

1. It is not airborne
2. It is not transmitted in the incubation period

...neither assumption is very strong.

* It could also be made airborne intentionally: http://rt.com/news/178992-ebola-biological-weapon-terrorists

The original author was talking 30-60% population reduction, which I can't see happening without subsequent mass fear, hiding, suspicion, riots, revolts, pillaging and the like.

The factors you mention are "extra". Mortality rate through the virus alone is 60%.

We'll see how this story develops and whether it affects cash being banned at some stage during the next months / years. If this happens, it also has the potential to create a massive boom in the anon-currencies, as they are better equipped to replace cash than Bitcoin due to their privacy.

Banning cash has been the goal of those trying to control the population for well over two decades. The trouble is that the poor refuse to play along simply because account based payment methods (banking, debit cards etc.) make no economic sense at all, for them or their service providers. Furthermore AML/KNC and anti money laundering laws have made providing banking services to the poor even less cost effective. We must keep in mind that it costs roughly the same for a financial institution to do AML/KNC on someone who has has a net worth of 10,000,000 USD or 1 USD. The profit for the financial institution is greater in the first case by a factor of 7 orders of magnitude or more. The economic reality is that banning cash requires eliminating poverty. When it comes to privacy or transactions involving poor people, for in person transactions, it is very hard to beat low tech solutions such as cash and a hoodie. It is online and at a distance where crypto-currencies such as BTC and XMR can shine providing both privacy and a cost effective method for the poor to send and receive money.  

By the way the opportunity for the wealthy in BTC or XMR is as an investment and / or a store of value. For the poor it is as a way to send and receive money in a cost effective manner. This creates a rather unusual synergy between those at the top and those at the bottom of the financial pyramid. Ironically those in the middle say a wage earning consumer that does not do international transactions may end up benefiting the least.

[birr]

The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads

This nutty conspiracy theory that the fall of the WTC was an inside job doesn't wash, Risto.
Passenger airliners flying out of Boston hit the towers.  Those buildings were 110 storeys tall.  The entire mass of those buildings pancaked straight down.  It's kind of surprising they only took one other building with them.
You remind me of an Egyptian friend I knew many years.  He came up to me and said, you know they warned all the Jews before the buildings fell down, right?
Abysmal.
I've been living in New York City since 1981.  I've heard enough ridiculous statements from ignorant people.

[btcbeliever]

Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.)

Right on Risto! Listen folks!  If you can handle the truth watch 'loose change final cut' on youtube.  And check out alex jones on www.infowars.com.  I one thought 9/11 truthers were all crazies, but now it's incredibly obvious it was all a fraud from A to z.  Alex Jones opened my eyes.

[aminorex]

The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads

This nutty conspiracy theory that the fall of the WTC was an inside job doesn't wash, Risto.
Passenger airliners flying out of Boston hit the towers.  Those buildings were 110 storeys tall.  The entire mass of those buildings pancaked straight down.  It's kind of surprising they only took one other building with them.
You remind me of an Egyptian friend I knew many years.  He came up to me and said, you know they warned all the Jews before the buildings fell down, right?
Abysmal.
I've been living in New York City since 1981.  I've heard enough ridiculous statements from ignorant people.

You mean nutty conspiracy fact.  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/odigo_9-11_warning.html
There are many, many other nutty conspiracy facts about the destruction of the world trade center complex (more than 3 buildings in fact),
but we should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing Risto to lead us off-topic.

[MNDan]

I was enjoying this thread until people started getting...uh...paranoid. Or maybe it's one big level.

[kireinaha]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

[niner]

The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads

This nutty conspiracy theory that the fall of the WTC was an inside job doesn't wash, Risto.
Passenger airliners flying out of Boston hit the towers.  Those buildings were 110 storeys tall.  The entire mass of those buildings pancaked straight down.  It's kind of surprising they only took one other building with them.
You remind me of an Egyptian friend I knew many years.  He came up to me and said, you know they warned all the Jews before the buildings fell down, right?
Abysmal.
I've been living in New York City since 1981.  I've heard enough ridiculous statements from ignorant people.

You mean nutty conspiracy fact.  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/odigo_9-11_warning.html
There are many, many other nutty conspiracy facts about the destruction of the world trade center complex (more than 3 buildings in fact),
but we should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing Risto to lead us off-topic.

An architect named Richard Gage was on CSPAN just this month.
He said that most structural engineers (as is the case with the general public) have not
heard about what happened at building 7 on 9/11.  But when they (the engineers) do find out
about it they overwhelmingly agree with him that only a controlled demolition
could have caused the collapse.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtGhjzI9rw4

[Raystonn]

Pathetic ignorance.  Educated individuals look for data that contradicts their held beliefs that they might be bolstered by a lack of refutable evidence.  The pathetic look only for data and opinions that support their beliefs, that they may appeal to popularity and hope the rest of the world doesn't notice their fallacies.

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

[farfiman]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

[simplecrypto]

www.cluesforum.info

It is the only thing you need to know about 911. All credit to Simon and the gang. I read about it first in 2010 and my eyes are now trained well to spot actors and fakes in everyday media stories.

Alex Jones/ Truthers etc are all bullshit to keep everyone disillusioned about the whole charade that has been the main weapon of governments and realms for years and years - Media manipulation and fakery.

Some of you will laugh it out. Some will outright attack me and dismiss me. And then some will be engrossed for the next few weeks and or months as you finally realize how everything works.

Here is a simple, primer video to understand how hoaxes work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYkHAmLw-f8

[akujin]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

Since 9/11... LOL! 

[nioc]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen. 

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances. 

[RAJSALLIN]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen. 

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances. 

This is incorrect and what they want you to believe. Yes heat does weaken steal but it doesn't weaken it to the extent that a steal frame would collapse. Especially not in a controlled manner.

[ErisDiscordia]

The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads

This nutty conspiracy theory that the fall of the WTC was an inside job doesn't wash, Risto.
Passenger airliners flying out of Boston hit the towers.  Those buildings were 110 storeys tall.  The entire mass of those buildings pancaked straight down.  It's kind of surprising they only took one other building with them.
You remind me of an Egyptian friend I knew many years.  He came up to me and said, you know they warned all the Jews before the buildings fell down, right?
Abysmal.
I've been living in New York City since 1981.  I've heard enough ridiculous statements from ignorant people.

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

To believe that conspiracies don't happen is to fall prey to what I call the Great Conspiracy.

"Conspiracy theorist" has become the universal derogatory term with which to label anyone unwilling to line up behind the official cultural narrative without the need to actually engage him/her in meaningful discussion or to present facts which contradict his/her theory. Exactly like the term "communist" some decades ago.

To believe any one conspiracy theory to be 100% false, especially without consulting the evidence, is as insane as believing any one of them to be 100% true. This is outdated artistotelian either/or thinking which just doesn't cut it when thinking about complex phenomena.

The fact that people are routinely dismissing conspiracy theories from a position of arrogant superiority without feeling the need to engage the evidence (because they KNOW what is true and what is not...) seems extremely worrying to me as it indicates a captured population which has been trained to unquestioningly trust authority and even attack anyone who dares suggest that the authorities are not benevolent and wise.

Shame on you, people! Go read Robert Anton Wilsons work on conspiracy theories and learn how think about them in a sane manner - namely by assigning probabilities to various parts of presented theories according to your best effort at interpretin g the currently available facts. HURR DURR you are stupid because conspiracies makes you just look like a pathetic lemming.

EDIT: just to give you guys an example of what I'm talking about, let's consider the 9/11 case.

The theory here is that the US government (or parts of it) knew about the attacks before they happened or maybe even partly or completely organized them. If true, this would not present anything unprecedented as far as actions of governments go. Oppressive regimes routinely stage false flag operations in order to consolidate public opinion against a presented enemy, or pass legislation deemed unacceptable under regular conditions. So the most important part of the theory - the motive of the actor, can be deemed plausible for it has precedents. This is further supported by the speed with which the US gov responded with the PATRIOT act - it looks like they were prepared.

As for the actual logistics of the attack, whether steel beams can collapse from the heat generated by burning fuel, whether towers will collapse with such speed as they have when not destroyed by controlled demolition, where the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon went, what about building 7...I am not sure about these things for I don't consider myself an expert in any areas of knowledge needed to form an expert opinion here. I do consider the circumstances highly suspicious though and the official story seems to have holes in it. Overall, considering the possible motives of the US gov, I am assigning a probability of 50 - 70% that the US gov was at least partly aware and participating in the attacks. In other words I consider it more likely than not, that they had something to do with it. After all, when I consider incidents which prompted the US to go to war in the past (sinking of Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin) it would be the exception, not the rule if this was not a false flag operation.

[sidhujag]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen.  

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances.  

That and the structural beams that hold the towers up were all cut to a Tee of 45 degrees that people can all see pics of. The only way this happens is if it was pre cut and fabricated and makes sense that a single fire can knock such a big building down in one swoop without affecting the others.

How about the insurance stocks that secretly shot up with big orders the days leading up to it? Whats this I hear that Bush's relatives or he was the head of the security servailance team or something leading up to the attack... too many things to obvious that it was coordinated to invade another country for its resources.

[BombaUcigasa]

This is incorrect and what they want you to believe. Yes heat does weaken steal but it doesn't weaken it to the extent that a steal frame would collapse. Especially not in a controlled manner.

Crazy + grammar + ignorance.

You should study a bit before you watch too many propaganda videos...

[RoadStress]

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen. 

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances. 

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

[molecular]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen.  

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

to explain building 7 collapse from fire, you're using the only other example of a skyscraper collapsing (apparently) from fire: the twin towers. lol. of course those were also demolished on purpose, maybe using some sort of nanothermite.

I don't know of any case (other than 9/11) where a steel-framed building collapsed from fire. You?

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances.  

Indeed. Man-made ones specifically prepared to bring them down.

[molecular]

This is incorrect and what they want you to believe. Yes heat does weaken steal but it doesn't weaken it to the extent that a steal frame would collapse. Especially not in a controlled manner.

Crazy + grammar + ignorance.

You should study a bit before you watch too many propaganda videos...

Your resorting to ad hominems speaks volumes.

to quote ErisDiscordia from just a few posts back:

The fact that people are routinely dismissing conspiracy theories from a position of arrogant superiority without feeling the need to engage the evidence (because they KNOW what is true and what is not...) seems extremely worrying to me as it indicates a captured population which has been trained to unquestioningly trust authority and even attack anyone who dares suggest that the authorities are not benevolent and wise.

Shame on you, people!

[Wary]

People! Go vote about 9/11! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730862.0  Every vote matters! 

[Bagatell]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

Professor Buttcorn and co would probably say the same about you and your support of Bitcoin. Ironic, eh?

[Wary]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

[ErisDiscordia]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

[kireinaha]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government, but also aviation, engineering, explosives, and building security... all of whom have kept their mouths shut all this time about the empty airplanes (or the rockets on airplanes... or just rockets or whatever the hell the nuts want to believe now), all the explosives rigged up in the buildings weeks in advance, and the crews who went around the building discreetly planting the explosives in what would be the largest planned demolition of a building ever... all in the goal to kill their fellow countrymen in cold blood...

(this would be the same government, by the way, that couldn't even keep a presidential blow job secret for long) .... yes, I do begin to doubt the intellectual capacities of anyone who could believe in such drivel.

[Wekkel]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

It's called human nature....

[Wary]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

That's why I said it's not about intellect. I respect risto's intellect and believe it's stronger than mine, but it doesn't mean that it always produces better results than mine does. Humans are not computers, and no human conclusion is made using intellect only. Smart people sometimes can believe in stupid things, just because they want to believe in them.

[rpietila]

Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government, but also aviation, engineering, explosives, and building security... all of whom have kept their mouths shut all this time about the empty airplanes (or the rockets on airplanes... or just rockets or whatever the hell the nuts want to believe now), all the explosives rigged up in the buildings weeks in advance, and the crews who went around the building discreetly planting the explosives in what would be the largest planned demolition of a building ever... all in the goal to kill their fellow countrymen in cold blood...

(this would be the same government, by the way, that couldn't even keep a presidential blow job secret for long) .... yes, I do begin to doubt the intellectual capacities of anyone who could believe in such drivel.

No of course they did not. Many have spoken out, some lost their lives for it. Respect the martyrs and shut up, please.

The truth is about to hit you hard. With one minute google search you will find enough to read to permanently change your thinking about this subject. The condition is, of course, that you have the cognitive ability to understand what you read, and some background in science to verify the hard evidence. But most of people have those. The problem is their brainwash. (Somebody better versed in this area can explain, I lack the correct words.)

I've begun to think that the reason why more and more unbelievable things are propagated as truth in mass media, is to gauge the individual people's reactions via social media. You are graded in a scale of most gullible to least gullible. This list is kept for future purposes. Then there is a breaking point when you decide to actively disbelieve everything, the attitude that if it's on the mass media, it is more likely false than true, and anyway not good for me. That is a point of no return, your life has just started.  

[molecular]

I've begun to think that the reason why more and more unbelievable things are propagated as truth in mass media, is to gauge the individual people's reactions via social media. You are graded in a scale of most gullible to least gullible. This list is kept for future purposes. Then there is a breaking point when you decide to actively disbelieve everything, the attitude that if it's on the mass media, it is more likely false than true, and anyway not good for me. That is a point of no return, your life has just started.  

fucking red pill. Can be hard to digest at times...

[ErisDiscordia]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government, but also aviation, engineering, explosives, and building security... all of whom have kept their mouths shut all this time about the empty airplanes (or the rockets on airplanes... or just rockets or whatever the hell the nuts want to believe now), all the explosives rigged up in the buildings weeks in advance, and the crews who went around the building discreetly planting the explosives in what would be the largest planned demolition of a building ever... all in the goal to kill their fellow countrymen in cold blood...

(this would be the same government, by the way, that couldn't even keep a presidential blow job secret for long) .... yes, I do begin to doubt the intellectual capacities of anyone who could believe in such drivel.

well this is a straw man I'd say. You have cherry-picked the most difficult to believe parts of 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet those are not the only ones in existence. For instance it is possible that the towers indeed collapsed just due to the impacts of the airplanes, yet US gov was aware of the attack.

Anyways I don't see a reason to debate this with you. You seem to have made up your mind already and you have categorized people with a different opinion with certain derogatory labels. In other words, your mind has stopped receiving new signals concerning the subject matter and thus killed any potential for a beneficial discussion.

My point here has always been that absolute belief is dangerous. And it doesn't matter if it is absolute belief in your favorite conspiracy theory, in your government, in your religion or in your conviction that there are no conspiracies. The refusal to consider an idea and the insulting of its proponents reeks of dogma to me and I'm allergic to that shit 

Oh and let me take this chance to state my own personal bias: while I don't support ANY dogma, I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.

[RAJSALLIN]

This is incorrect and what they want you to believe. Yes heat does weaken steal but it doesn't weaken it to the extent that a steal frame would collapse. Especially not in a controlled manner.

Crazy + grammar + ignorance.

You should study a bit before you watch too many propaganda videos...

Blind + sheep + sad

[rpietila]

There will hopefully be pictures about our current summer retreat soon in the instagram page.

http://instagram.com/mallaretreat

[kodtycoon]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government, but also aviation, engineering, explosives, and building security... all of whom have kept their mouths shut all this time about the empty airplanes (or the rockets on airplanes... or just rockets or whatever the hell the nuts want to believe now), all the explosives rigged up in the buildings weeks in advance, and the crews who went around the building discreetly planting the explosives in what would be the largest planned demolition of a building ever... all in the goal to kill their fellow countrymen in cold blood...

(this would be the same government, by the way, that couldn't even keep a presidential blow job secret for long) .... yes, I do begin to doubt the intellectual capacities of anyone who could believe in such drivel.

if it's such drivel, explain how the buildings came down in free fall? The termite residue? The multon iron pools. The multiple multiple records of explosive blast in the basement before the first plane hit? The third tower that came down in the same fashion with out being hit by any plane? How the central pillar fell to dust when if it did collapse due to fire damage that central pillar should have stayed up as that's what it's built for. What about the 3rd plane that "evaporated" on impact with the Pentagon which is scientifically impossible no matter how you slice it.

If your disillusioned enough to think that the US government wouldn't do something like that TO START A WAR, you really need to do more research into the first second, Vietnam and most other wars.

In Ukraine over ten thousand people have been killed. Mostly on the rebel side, and what do the Americans(American controlled NATO to be more precise) do? Send the Kiev army 4.5m dollars in aid.

Weapons of mass destruction? PAAAHA

Asama bin Laden = terrorist? Former close friend of Bush admin on via payroll more like

Isreal.. Thousands dead, over 300 children, America treble the military funding for poor old Israel.

Oh no Isis are getting close to an oil refinery... We better bomb them while congress are conveniently on holiday!!

[Wary]

I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.

And which percentage of them believe in their own conspiracy theories? I'm afraid, anti-official side is as reach with blind believers as the the official one. They just believe in opposite kind of nonsense.

[BombaUcigasa]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

This is incorrect and what they want you to believe. Yes heat does weaken steal but it doesn't weaken it to the extent that a steal frame would collapse. Especially not in a controlled manner.

Crazy + grammar + ignorance.

You should study a bit before you watch too many propaganda videos...

Your resorting to ad hominems speaks volumes.

You don't need to take crazy paranoid comments seriously when they spout retarded shit. Just look at the numbers and ask yourself why would you endorse his arguments while disregarding reality?

[ErisDiscordia]

I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.

And which percentage of them believe in their own conspiracy theories? I'm afraid, anti-official side is as reach with blind believers as the the official one. They just believe in opposite kind of nonsense.

oh of course that is what I see as well: full of blind faith on either side of the argument. That's why I mentioned earlier that I find the anti-authoritarian narratives more aesthetically pleasing but that is all.

You rightfully point out that it is not "their own" conspiracy theories people tend to believe: they adopt them. I suspect many of them are driven by the same impulse as hipsters - trying to feel better/smarter than the population in general by being different/believing something different. On the other hand, supporters of official theories dismissing conspiracy theorists as feeble minded delusional paranoids seem to be engaging in pretty similar one-upmanship through making themselves feel better, because they "don't believe in THAT drivel" (instead they believe in other, more popular and widely accepted drivel  )

Ah the ways in which we delude ourselves are endless and intelligent discussion is seldom to be found.

[Vanderi]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen. 

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances. 

Yes heat does weaken steal

Truth of the day.

[BowieMan]

Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!

[Its About Sharing]

Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!

Nah, I love these provocations at authority. Few believe the governments story and we define how we use our language. Keep the criminals on their toes.
We shouldn't have to adjust our lives to them, governments serve us and should adjust to us, to serving us. A little cognitive dissonance is in order...

Would be nice to have a Rpietila "The truth behind 911" thread though. 

After all,
Its about sharing

[rpietila]

Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!

Let them stay. The thread has many readers so regard them as "commercials" that you would have to endure while watching TV. The United States is trying hard to foment an actual, hot, war with Russia at present, and the spreading of lies is going so strong. There must be some truth to balance.

[Wekkel]

Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!

Let them stay. The thread has many readers so regard them as "commercials" that you would have to endure while watching TV. The United States is trying hard to foment an actual, hot, war with Russia at present, and the spreading of lies is going so strong. There must be some truth to balance.

No way the US is provoking war. Otherwise a whistleblower would step up and tell all about that dirty little secret 

Deprogramming is hard, and there is no turning back.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government

...because the state is not a conspiracy, right?
"The State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens" - Leo Tolstoy

So this is what if the 'conspiracy theorists' are wrong:
The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2160541

[Carlton Banks]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

[simplecrypto]

www.cluesforum.info

It is the only thing you need to know about 911. All credit to Simon and the gang. I read about it first in 2010 and my eyes are now trained well to spot actors and fakes in everyday media stories.

Alex Jones/ Truthers etc are all bullshit to keep everyone disillusioned about the whole charade that has been the main weapon of governments and realms for years and years - Media manipulation and fakery.

Some of you will laugh it out. Some will outright attack me and dismiss me. And then some will be engrossed for the next few weeks and or months as you finally realize how everything works.

Here is a simple, primer video to understand how hoaxes work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYkHAmLw-f8

Apologies for bumping my own post. Did anyone get a chance to read a bit on Cluesforum.info ? Thoughts?

Also I deliberately chose to include this 5 min video to see the different reactions. It usually gets a few different reactions although it is just a simple 5 min video of a man narrating his experience. Do not get sucked into reading any of the comments posted on it.

Alex Jones, Truthers, Shills etc are controlled opposition. They want to be your favourite conspiracy theorist, exploiting the inner rebel and conspiracy theories most of us have, and lead us down to the faux roads in order to keep the real media hoax away from common minds and create further confusion and uncertainties about the entire event. More is discussed in the "Truthers and Shills" subforum.

Risto, it appears you were also not aware of cluesforum and have the rebel stance, but have been misled by the controlled opposition.

Cluesforum will change your lives once you spend just a few days researching and reading it.

[ErisDiscordia]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Thank you for being a much needed voice of reason in this...dare I call it debate?

I bolded what I consider to be the most important message of your post. The founder of General Semantics Alfred Korzybski made the observation that the structure of the language we use influences the thoughts we think and by extension the actions we do and the social institutions we build. I think there is a lot of truth in that observation which is why I keep looking out for the language people use and reminding them to examine the assumptions implicit in the language they are using more closely.

Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages actually mislead us as to the "facts" with which we must deal. Our understanding of what is happening sometimes lacks similarity of structure with what is actually happening.

Too often we see this:

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

It's called human nature....

well...

In the 1947 preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity, Korzybski wrote, "We need not blind ourselves with the old dogma that 'human nature cannot be changed,' for we find that it can be changed."

Posters, please consider and examine the language you are using.

The greater our awareness of the structures of our own nervous systems and the languages we are using grows, the greater freedom and sanity we gain

[Peter R]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

+1

Well said Carlton.

[MahaRamana]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

+1 Exactly.

about the theory in cluesforum, it does not change anything. Wether the powers controlling government and the FED actually did it or whether they made a "movie" pretending it happened amounts to exactly the same thing. Wether such acts are done or simulated creates basically the same trauma in the collective mind and fulfils the same purpose.

[cedivad]

Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0

[simplecrypto]

Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0

Disinformation and gatekeeping ala "Truthers and Shills".

[kireinaha]

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his

Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government, but also aviation, engineering, explosives, and building security... all of whom have kept their mouths shut all this time about the empty airplanes (or the rockets on airplanes... or just rockets or whatever the hell the nuts want to believe now), all the explosives rigged up in the buildings weeks in advance, and the crews who went around the building discreetly planting the explosives in what would be the largest planned demolition of a building ever... all in the goal to kill their fellow countrymen in cold blood...

(this would be the same government, by the way, that couldn't even keep a presidential blow job secret for long) .... yes, I do begin to doubt the intellectual capacities of anyone who could believe in such drivel.

well this is a straw man I'd say. You have cherry-picked the most difficult to believe parts of 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet those are not the only ones in existence. For instance it is possible that the towers indeed collapsed just due to the impacts of the airplanes, yet US gov was aware of the attack.

Anyways I don't see a reason to debate this with you. You seem to have made up your mind already and you have categorized people with a different opinion with certain derogatory labels. In other words, your mind has stopped receiving new signals concerning the subject matter and thus killed any potential for a beneficial discussion.

My point here has always been that absolute belief is dangerous. And it doesn't matter if it is absolute belief in your favorite conspiracy theory, in your government, in your religion or in your conviction that there are no conspiracies. The refusal to consider an idea and the insulting of its proponents reeks of dogma to me and I'm allergic to that shit  

Oh and let me take this chance to state my own personal bias: while I don't support ANY dogma, I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.

I can't help but to cherry pick different aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theories; every single one of these mouth breathers that I've had the displeasure of meeting in real life or online give different versions of events, or provide links to such scholarly, peer reviewed websites such as rense.com or infowars and suddenly become "experts" on steel, engineering, and airplane crash sites. If I was to include all their bullshit theories in my original post, I would soon exceed some type of forum message length policy.

I suppose some of the more moderate -- but still dumb -- truthers will propose that Bush was in on the plot with his buddy Usama bin Laden and allowed him to carry out the attack, or even orchestrated the whole attack themselves. Of course, they can't explain why this supposedly surreptitious government wasn't even bright enough to just plant a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq to justify that particular war. That would have been quite easy in comparison. They really dropped the ball on that one, didn't they?

[cedivad]

Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0

Disinformation and gatekeeping ala "Truthers and Shills".

I don't waste my time arguing with people without arguments.

[AlexGR]

The truth is about to hit you hard. With one minute google search you will find enough to read to permanently change your thinking about this subject. The condition is, of course, that you have the cognitive ability to understand what you read, and some background in science to verify the hard evidence. But most of people have those. The problem is their brainwash. (Somebody better versed in this area can explain, I lack the correct words.)

It's more about "conditioning".

All humans desire to be loved. Thus, from an early age, they formulate social strategies to receive love. One of the most common strategies is to be accepted by others, thus aligning with the group and the perception of the group: Let's call it "mainstream worldview".

Those who subconsciously believe that they will be rejected by going against the accepted beliefs of the group, depriving them of acceptance (which is subconsciously equated with love) will rather stay in line with the accepted beliefs / mainstream worldview and be the valiant defenders of this worldview, so that they can show their "worthiness" to the other members of the group, and increase their acceptability while at the same time trying to paint the "contrast" of non-acceptability in their "enemies" who are labeled "nuts", "idiots", "irrational" etc. It follows that "less acceptance for them = more acceptance for me" => more love for me.

It is interesting how a motive like wanting to be loved can produce such behaviors. But then again, that's the very pattern that parents use on their kids so that kids will behave according to parents expectations... "be good or else I won't  accept you / love you so much".

There are 4 stages of human evolution. They are strength, intellect, perception (this is what we are discussing right now - where one can be smart but also blind to the truth due to cognitive bias / investment in the reality framework that he believes in / perceived cost in disinvestment - like ridicule or lack of love and acceptance) and, a few decades down the road, consciousness.

1. The stage of physical strength

Kind of self-evident: The strong prevail. The weak die or are enslaved and prevented from procreation.

2. The stage of intellect

This is where humanity is in, right now - although it is migrating to stage 3 (perception). Women naturally desire strong and intelligent men to mate with. Some will argue that women want men with money, but this, in itself, is nearly impossible if one isn't intelligent. Thus the money-desire, or things like the desirable property for “humor” are simply camouflaged desires for intelligence.

3. The stage of perception

This is the stage where one's intelligence is allowed to expand by decoupling the associated cognitive biases – thus producing new thoughts that allow the individual to survive when the herd is heading over a cliff.

A human is naturally inclined to align with the group / society, in all ways, including the way he thinks, in order to become more socially acceptable and thus increase his chances of survival and getting love. However, the group-think effect is what undermines the ability of the individual to perceive things that the group chose to overlook. This is a serious handicap that the individual must overcome.

Imagine, for example, the possibility that things like RF frequencies, Genetically Modified food, substances contained in vaccines, etc etc are not so “appropriate” for humans. The establishment and the media create a pattern where people are demonized for going against “progress”. Society, at large, adopts the media claims. In this scenario, an individual speaking against RF frequencies, GM foods or vaccines could be seen as a “weirdo” by others.

By the time the effect of such things is understood, in terms of human biology, a whole sort of biological and reproductive problems (eg sperm count near zero) might have appeared for those engaged in group-think. Thus their ability to procreate and carry their genes forward will have severely been diminished. Those who will be better positioned, in this sense, will be those who are able to perceive the problems and solutions that society overlooks.

A small note regarding the examples given: While things like RF frequencies, GMOs, vaccines etc are issues that have the public opinion debating with some strong support and opposition, there are other issues which are more widely accepted in terms of group-think and only a handful of people are actually perceiving against the effect of group-think.


4. The stage of consciousness

Computer intelligence has so far been "dumb" and conditional through IF-THEN-ELSE programmed routines. A programmer inserts a number of conditions and responses that a program then executes. For example, IF temperature >25C THEN turn on the aircondition. So our houses are "smart" because they can auto-regulate the temperature. But in reality, they are simply running a "dumb" program.

There is another kind of computer intelligence however that is not conditional. Rather, it is based on a simulation of brain neurons and how they fire. These computer programs are called "neural networks" and, as they evolve, they will be able to do all tasks that human can, faster, and better.

When that happens, and "castles" like creativity fall to Artificial Intelligence, humans will have to re-evaluate their identity. "If the AI program can do all that I do, better, and faster, then what am I missing? What is my qualitative advantage over an AI program?"

In this sense, Artificial Intelligence has the potential to act catalytically in redefining who we are.

Some will simply accept their inferiority and try to merge with technological AI through implanted chips, computers, nanobots etc.

Others will indeed find the differentiating factor that separates them from an AI program. This differentiating factor is the God-spirit within us that has unlimited potential and can be merged to the human biology to upgrade it to a whole different level.

Thus, as Ape + Superior Mind created Humans as a new specie

...2 new species will emerge from Humans:

Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential

This is where we are heading...

In the meantime, we are migrating towards the stage of perception (stage 3). The Internet has allowed the mainstream worldview to fragment into large pieces of varying world-views. In the 80s or 90s it would be far more difficult for someone to speak out in favor of an alternative worldview, due to the fact that the perception of isolation was stronger - and thus the calculated risk of being penalized by the "group" was higher. But when people discovered they are not alone in thinking "the impossible", they got bolder. Thing is, those who required the Internet to become bolder in what to think and express, are still, in a way, confined to the same problematic mentality that those invested in the mainstream worldview are. They are not really autonomous thinkers - they are just slightly more "aggressive" in how far they are willing to go.

The truth can only be uncovered by one when he is really an autonomous thinker. When he's given himself permission to think the unthinkable, no matter the consequences or what the existing beliefs are in the various subgroups / various worldviews of groups. This will be of essence in the mid-term future. The reason is that the various subgroups or various worldviews can be "gamed" by the establishment through certain mechanisms, that are not so dissimilar from the mechanisms that are used to design the mainstream worldview.

[tabnloz]

While I don't subscribe to the inside job conspiracy, I do find some of the circumstances worthy of discussion:

- the odds of a NORAD training exercise simulating an airliner attack on NYC happening on the same day it actually happens (this also happened in London on 7/7)

- building 7 collapsing and the contemporaneous testimony of Barry Jennings (who was trapped in Building 7).

- shipping off the debris from one of the biggest crimes in world history without (apparently) sufficient study.

- the failures of the NIST report and the stacking of the committee which oversaw it.

[AlexGR]

Thank you for your post, AlexGR. There is unusual depth to your thinking. I wish I were as optimistic as you seem about human progress. One perfect example of out-of-the-box thinking is early adoption of Bitcoin, despite naysaying and negative propaganda by the powers that be and the herd. I'd expect that those of us intrepid enough to say the emperor has no clothes to fiat currency are much more likely to have resisted to propaganda and "cognitive infiltration" squads that enforce conformity on other matters crucial to the current regime's survival.

Still, it does fall into the pattern of what I described earlier regarding boldness and autonomous thinking because there is a certain alignment of people with anti-fiat investments, like precious metals for example. The anti-fiat people created a new "box" for group-think in the form of precious metals investments and it requires additional perceptual fluidity to step out of that box for a while to even investigate bitcoin and cryptocurrencies - not necessarily as a gold/silver killer, but as a supplementary investment or a hedge to their paper manipulation. After all, the marketcap of the cryptomarket is too small to drain even 0.1% of the marketcap of PMs.

Paradoxically, the above step was not so necessary for those who went from fiat -> bitcoin directly as an opportunity to make more fiat - because these people were interested in fiat and only saw bitcoin as the intermediate step that could bring them more fiat. So a lot of fiat people are exhibiting a better fluidity towards Bitcoin compared to anti-fiat people who are heavily invested into PMs and refuse to diversify.

It's not enough to make a new (or several) worldview(s) that challenges the old worldview. It requires perceptual fluidity and honest self-examination of one's cognitive biases. When an old belief or worldview, mainstream or alternative, proves to be a hindrance, it needs to be modified ASAP.

[simplecrypto]

Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0

Disinformation and gatekeeping ala "Truthers and Shills".

I don't loose my time arguing with people without arguments.

Everything has been explained www.cluesforum.info

Take your time, and it takes a lot of time, to assimilate the information. There is no winning or losing arguments. The beauty about cluesforum is that it may have started as a 911 project, but it goes far beyond just 911. You will be thankful, I guarantee you that.

The most common initial reaction to cluesforum is dismissal due to years of having being conditioned (throughout one's lifetime). It takes time to come out of it and then the acceptance phase.

[rpietila]

Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential

The cyborg is already here, we carry things with us, which are always on and through which we can reach every human on the planet and access all information produced in the history of mankind, in any language, it will be translated for us, and they have numerous physical world capabilities as well, and cost only $100...

The God-man is also manifested in an increasing way: remember in the Revelation, the Spirit of God is called Seven Spirits, because it has been magnified sevenfold for the consummation of the age (which is certainly in need of consummation in the next ~20 years, because the serpent has grown to be the Great Dragon, called the Devil and Satan, and is the deceiver of all mankind quite literally these days).

[JayJuanGee]

Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential

The cyborg is already here, we carry things with us, which are always on and through which we can reach every human on the planet and access all information produced in the history of mankind, in any language, it will be translated for us, and they have numerous physical world capabilities as well, and cost only $100...

The God-man is also manifested in an increasing way: remember in the Revelation, the Spirit of God is called Seven Spirits, because it has been magnified sevenfold for the consummation of the age (which is certainly in need of consummation in the next ~20 years, because the serpent has grown to be the Great Dragon, called the Devil and Satan, and is the deceiver of all mankind quite literally these days).

Oh MY!  NOW religion is coming into this in order to justify good versus bad?

[aminorex]

the diversity of worldviews attracted to a common thread is breathtaking

[AlexGR]

Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential

The cyborg is already here, we carry things with us, which are always on and through which we can reach every human on the planet and access all information produced in the history of mankind, in any language, it will be translated for us, and they have numerous physical world capabilities as well, and cost only $100...

Yes, for now technology is merged on the human body externally with gadgets - later on it will be implanted as it becomes convenient. However the gadgets today do not yet provide intelligence acceleration, in the sense of AI. They do provide "conveniences" though, with a major drawback: As the human mind "accepts" the conveniences offered, it admits its own inadequacy in performing the same tasks.

Two decades ago we would remember a whole list of phone numbers. We would be able to recall a big amount of information. Memorizing text or data was an internal task. Not to mention doing basic arithmetic with our minds. As we progress, these "abilities" are outsourced and the mental capacities associated to them are weakened as a result.

The major problem of techno-human hybridization or transhumanism is that it leads to centralized control of the human species due to the interconnectedness of human brains, plus we will have a two-tier transhuman race, in which those with the best technology (=the Elite who control the tech) will be advantaged over the rest or give the rest a set of tech that can be manipulated with the right "keys".

Another problem is that the risk is too big in terms of an EMP-wave civilization collapse. A generation raised with implants will lose all the natural mental capacities that are now "standard". An EMP from a solar blast can render the transhuman species concept as DOA in terms of survival capacity in adverse circumstances.

The God-man is also manifested in an increasing way: remember in the Revelation, the Spirit of God is called Seven Spirits, because it has been magnified sevenfold for the consummation of the age (which is certainly in need of consummation in the next ~20 years, because the serpent has grown to be the Great Dragon, called the Devil and Satan, and is the deceiver of all mankind quite literally these days).

Yes it is. Small numbers at first but gradually rising. The whole population will attain God-man capability in the next ~50-55 years, rendering bio/machine integration / transhumanism obsolete.

[Its About Sharing]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC 

Its about sharing

[hdbuck]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC  

Its about sharing

Fair enough, there is no conspiracy hence theory where there is proofs (helloo 911), and there is theory hence conspiracy where there is lack of proofs (helloo Manmade Golbal Warming..). It's just lying and hiding.

but cant you also imagine BTC being on top of that cherry?

edit: I mean, the Intelligencia, the Deep State, monitoring it all.  

[RoadStress]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

[Its About Sharing]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC  

Its about sharing

Fair enough, there is no conspiracy hence theory where there is proofs (helloo 911), and there is theory hence conspiracy where there is lack of proofs (helloo Manmade Golbal Warming..). It's just lying and hiding.

but cant you also imagine BTC being on top of that cherry?

edit: I mean, the Intelligencia, the Deep State, monitoring it all.  

I think/feel that anyone involved in BTC probably has had the fleeting thought that it was started by an agency. I think that, at this point, it really doesn't matter. Unless they get a new world war, I don't see these criminals being able to control where things are going.

Further, they appear to be losing more and more support. What Adam mentioned before regarding perception coming into being, along with consciuosness, is basically beyond "their" control. And if BTC is Trojan Horse, what the heck is perception and consciuosness to tptb? They/we are being hit by a multitude of forces and factors right now. We have a great chance...

Its about sharing

[inca]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC  

Its about sharing

Fair enough, there is no conspiracy hence theory where there is proofs (helloo 911), and there is theory hence conspiracy where there is lack of proofs (helloo Manmade Golbal Warming..). It's just lying and hiding.

but cant you also imagine BTC being on top of that cherry?

edit: I mean, the Intelligencia, the Deep State, monitoring it all.  

I think/feel that anyone involved in BTC probably has had the fleeting thought that it was started by an agency. I think that, at this point, it really doesn't matter. Unless they get a new world war, I don't see these criminals being able to control where things are going.

Further, they appear to be losing more and more support. What Adam mentioned before regarding perception coming into being, along with consciuosness, is basically beyond "their" control. And if BTC is Trojan Horse, what the heck is perception and consciuosness to tptb? They/we are being hit by a multitude of forces and factors right now. We have a great chance...

Its about sharing

Seems like the 9/11 debate could be steering us off btc discussions somewhat..

[BombaUcigasa]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

[nioc]

Oh look a thread started by me that wasn't started by me.  I wonder who did it?

Well I have been in both the medical and aviation fields. 

I was driving into Manhattan at the time when the planes hit the Twin Towers so I experienced it in real time even if from a few miles away.

[Its About Sharing]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)

Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.

If anyone is interested (snippet):

On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
That building was mangled but never came down.

Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet

Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.

Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.

“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/

[nioc]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)


Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.

The fire from jet fuel ignited everything within the building such as furniture, plastic and paper as well as the airplane itself.  Maybe this is what you saw?  The next day the resulting ash and smell was drifting in the air in my neighborhood 15 miles away.  How hot was the fire?  I was trained in putting out jet fuel fires.  You couldn't just light it as it had a high ignition temperature.  You could put out a cigarette in it.  We had to pour gasoline over the jet fuel and light that which would then ignite the jet fuel.  I also have experience with welding so I know how steel conducts heat.  The red glow will stay localized.

If anyone is interested (snippet):

On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
That building was mangled but never came down.

Steel reinforced concrete.  Different material and totally different construction methods.  Also the fire wasn't at the base of the building which supports the rest of the building.  Then there is the difference in the temperature of the fire.

Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet

Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.

Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.

“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/

[Its About Sharing]

I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)

Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.

The fire from jet fuel ignited everything within the building such as furniture, plastic and paper as well as the airplane itself.  Maybe this is what you saw?  The next day the resulting ash and smell was drifting in the air in my neighborhood 15 miles away.  How hot was the fire?  I was trained in putting out jet fuel fires.  You couldn't just light it as it had a high ignition temperature.  You could put out a cigarette in it.  We had to pour gasoline over the jet fuel and light that which would then ignite the jet fuel.  I also have experience with welding so I know how steel conducts heat.  The red glow will stay localized.

The fire wasn't hot, there were people standing around up there. Clearly things were cooling off. I think we are all aware that there were other materials burning but again, that was not a hot fire.
Steel transmits heat. The fires were cooling off as well as the heat being dissipated. I am not sure how you can argue basic physics.

If anyone is interested (snippet):

On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
That building was mangled but never came down.

Steel reinforced concrete.  Different material and totally different construction methods.  Also the fire wasn't at the base of the building which supports the rest of the building.  Then there is the difference in the temperature of the fire.

So, the top of the WTC's was heavy enough to flatten the entire building? And it did so in such extreme fashion that the concrete was pulverized? Explain to me how the upper portion of the building had enough energy to flatten the rest and WHILE it was falling over. Explain why all of the computer simulations couldn't duplicate what happened that day. Explain how a building falls at free fall speed? Wouldn't all the steel and concrete slow things down? You are simplifying things. The Spain fire was apparently a hotter burning fire.

Regarding the base of the building. You are aware that the lobby was blown out? Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet

Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.

Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.

“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/

I bolded in red the parts you skipped over.

[giveBTCpls]

Here is the latest bitcoin adjusted transaction quantity graph with log scale and 7-day moving average. Note the transaction quantity in the month of August  is now above May levels. The Bitstamp bitcoin price in May peaked at $683.

We really seem to be on an upswing what adoption is concerned. I think over the summer a lot of people got to know Bitcoin or talked about it with friends. Now that the summer is nearing its end, and people will soon get back from their holidays, the demand may increase again.

Legit. Over the summer is the only chance most people get to stop their wageslave lifestyles and actually have some extra time to "check stuff out" with a peace of mind. Some may be finding out about BTC and researching on it.

As for 9/11, there are good arguments to support the official version and there are good arguments to suport the unofficial version (inside job).

I remain undecided.

[Tusk]

Legit. Over the summer is the only chance most people get to stop their wageslave lifestyles and actually have some extra time to "check stuff out" with a peace of mind. Some may be finding out about BTC and researching on it.

As for 9/11, there are good arguments to support the official version and there are good arguments to support the unofficial version (inside job).

I remain undecided.

Given the latest media manipulation of Gaza and Ukraine, don't you think this is not the first time? Whatever the truth is behind 9/11 only the perpetrators themselves will know. but one thing is certain you have to go beyond the mainstream official lie to find some semblance of the truth.

[BombaUcigasa]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

[nioc]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

In the first reports I heard on the radio an eyewitness said a DC3 flew into the first tower.

It's About Sharing, the construction of the towers was unlike anything that had ever been built.  They did survive the impacts of the plane which most buildings would not have.  The way the floors were attached to the uprights was such that once the first floors lost the integrity of their attachments due to the heat, physical damage and added weight of the plane, the weight/ momentum of those floors caused the failure of the floors below in rapid succession.  Again the construction of the towers was unique.  The second tower that was hit came down first because of the way the plane hit it which caused more physical damage to the structure.  That damage was obvious to see.

But you know all this.

[Wekkel]

I wonder: does the order still stand?

[Its About Sharing]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

Are you serious? Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background? Is this just another Ad Hominem attack?
The guy toured the world telling his story and the so called government committee didn't even include his first hand testimony.

[Its About Sharing]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

In the first reports I heard on the radio an eyewitness said a DC3 flew into the first tower.

It's About Sharing, the construction of the towers was unlike anything that had ever been built.  They did survive the impacts of the plane which most buildings would not have.  The way the floors were attached to the uprights was such that once the first floors lost the integrity of their attachments due to the heat, physical damage and added weight of the plane, the weight/ momentum of those floors caused the failure of the floors below in rapid succession.  Again the construction of the towers was unique.  The second tower that was hit came down first because of the way the plane hit it which caused more physical damage to the structure.  That damage was obvious to see.

But you know all this.

I'm not sure what your intent is, but basically you ignored my replies and then bring up Red Herrings. Are you trained to avoid discussion?

The towers had an inner steel core, an incredibly large one. That building was designed to withstand multiple hits as it did.
How many theories has the government now put down regarding the collapse? They must be up to 4 or 5 I believe. And few are buying it.
Again, buildings don't just fall down on themselves. Perhaps one can fall over given enough force, but not implode upon itself at free fall speed.
There is a reason architects, engineers and professionals all over the world are involved in this.
There is a reason that most people don't believe the governments story.

Your mind is made up and is not open to discussion. Your job here is apparently served.

Its about sharing

[hdbuck]

What do you guys think of General Wesley Clark's approach to 911?

-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4DgsCqP8U

He seems quite legit, a true american patriot that does not have obvious reason to lie about what he experienced at the highest levels of the State.




+ what about Larry Silverstein, who bought WTC for a nugget barely a year before the attack (whilst engaging in renovating and putting those buildings in adequate standards), but added a special article about "terrorists attacks" in the $5+ Billion insurance policy not even a month before it happened?

So IMHO, the main reason WTC went down was because the costs of dismantlement or removing the asbestos were just huge. And so it was somehow just better to blow it up, accusing some terrorists, strengthening the laws (patriot act?! NSA spying?!) to control the population and spread fear amongst it, make profit, and find excuses to mess with middle east countries. Easy.  

edit: and so imho to find the Who, one must not only focus on the How (suicidal beard-gang members with cutters?!): its more about the Why. And one can then argue that 911 did provide a huge hedge to america's puppetmasters, at least for that last decade..

[pa]

One of the reasons it is so difficult to have a serious, logical discussion regarding the 9/11 attacks is that the US government (and likely other interested parties) have hired shills/trolls to infiltrate and disrupt such discussions. See: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/01/13/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

It's worth reading Cass Sunstein's Orwellian paper on "Cognitive Infiltration": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

[BombaUcigasa]

Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background?

I discount my own testimony as a witness. I would never ask anyone to take my single version as truth as I am human and fallible. Do you believe yourself?

In case you haven't noticed people believe things that they did not partake in so seriously, that they die to prove their sincerity (in honestly believing a lie).

Like skyscraper collision assisted group suicide...

[Its About Sharing]

Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background?

I discount my own testimony as a witness. I would never ask anyone to take my single version as truth as I am human and fallible. Do you believe yourself?

In case you haven't noticed people believe things that they did not partake in so seriously, that they die to prove their sincerity (in honestly believing a lie).

Like skyscraper collision assisted group suicide...

You are avoiding a witness who was in a key location. Other witnesses btw have verified his claims. Your argument is making very little sense. It is like a combination of more logical fallacies than I care to look up.

This is not a matter of believing what anyone says, per say. Rather it is about investigating their claims, and OPENLY. That was not done.
The biggest crime in our history had no investigation until the families forced the administration into doing so and then they put Henry Kissinger in as the head!
Until of course his conflict of interests forced him to resign (or be removed.)

So many people were murdered that day and the investigation was avoided at all costs. We should have an open investigation, still.

pa - It certainly appears so. The amount of money spent on defense, intelligence, etc. really makes one wonder where it is spent. And controlling public opinion is of paramount importance. I just hope those duped into being shills/trolls start to look at the bigger picture. Thanks for the links.

IAS

[niner]

Max Cleland is a former US senator who served on the 9/11 commission:

quote from wikipedia:

he was quoted as saying in November 2003: "I... cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."[20] He called the 9/11 Commission a "national scandal." [21][22]

On the other hand you have structural engineers and architects and like Richard Gage putting their reputations on the line with peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

Richard Gage was interviewed on CSPAN earlier this month. ...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtGhjzI9rw4

[zimmah]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.)

even without the evidence of planes, and the fact that a single planestrike does not make a tower collapse, the main point of evidence is this:

It is a very hard science to make a tall building explode in a controlled demolition in such a way that it does not damage anything near it. (Or at least does minimal collateral damage). The only way to make a building collapse in a controlled way is by many small timed explosions. It takes a team of highly specialized engineers weeks if not months of preparation to get it right.

Apparently two planes managed to do it just like that. Quite odd, isn't it?

If you don't buy my story about controlled demolition, why don't you check out videos on youtube and see how often it goes wrong? Note that those jobs are always done only by experts, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The odds of having a plane strike cause a perfect collapse (or any kind of collapse at all) is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

note especially the second building, this is what happens VERY OFTEN, and this is what you would expect to happen when only the top part of the building is severely damaged, the top will just slide off, and do no damage to the bottom. Especially if the top part is not nearly as heavy as the bottom part (which is always the case, because the bottom has much more support, and is therefore heavier, not to mention the top part only a few stories, it did not have nearly enough mass to destroy the complete tower beneath it). Trust me i'm an engineer. The top part would need to be at least 40 times heavier to be able to crush the bottom part like it did, unless all the support was blown away at precisely timed intervals with small explosions starting at the bottom of the tower.

[zimmah]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen.  

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances.  

First of all, the heat would mostly go upwards

Secondly, the fuel would not last for hours, as the wings (which act as fuel containers) can be assumed to be ripped apart, so the fuel is mixed with the air everywhere and therefore would combust within several seconds, minutes at most.

At most, the temperature due to the jet fuel fire would increase by about 200 degrees celsius, which is not even nearly enough to melt or even weaken steel.

Also, most of the heat would be absorbed by the air in the first place anyway.

by the way, this tower did not collapse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

note that fireworks in fact do heat up the building much more than jet fuel (at least in those quantities) for the simple fact that the fire is sustained for a much longer period of time. Therefore the air will become much hotter and thus the structure of the building gets more time to absorb the heat, instead of the heat just blowing away with the wind.

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

all nice numbers, but they're meaningless,

to know how much the steel really heats up, you don't need to know how hot kerosine burns, you need to know how much energy (heat) is added to the structure of the building.

You have to consider the amount of fuel burnt, the efficiency of the burning process (there's 3 possible chemical burn processes of jet fuel depending on how well the fuel was mixed with oxygen), the total mass of all the objects that were heated up including the air (which will absorb most of the heat, by the way), the specific heat of all the object heated, and from that calculate the deviation in heat, in other words how much things heat up from the temperature they started out at.

Since the building is quite large, and the fire was at the top of the building, it's not possible for all the steel in the building to have absorbed nearly enough heat to weaken by a large enough margin to allow structural failure.

on top of that, i would assume a building like that to have a large amount of redundancy in support so that even if the steel was somehow weakened to even 20% of their normal support it would still be able to stand without a problem. A certain level of redundancy is even required in all buildings as a safety measure.

[cedivad]

It's worth reading Cass Sunstein's Orwellian paper on "Cognitive Infiltration": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Reading it is Orwellian all the way down.

[Its About Sharing]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.)

even without the evidence of planes, and the fact that a single planestrike does not make a tower collapse, the main point of evidence is this:

It is a very hard science to make a tall building explode in a controlled demolition in such a way that it does not damage anything near it. (Or at least does minimal collateral damage). The only way to make a building collapse in a controlled way is by many small timed explosions. It takes a team of highly specialized engineers weeks if not months of preparation to get it right.

Apparently two planes managed to do it just like that. Quite odd, isn't it?

If you don't buy my story about controlled demolition, why don't you check out videos on youtube and see how often it goes wrong? Note that those jobs are always done only by experts, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The odds of having a plane strike cause a perfect collapse (or any kind of collapse at all) is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

note especially the second building, this is what happens VERY OFTEN, and this is what you would expect to happen when only the top part of the building is severely damaged, the top will just slide off, and do no damage to the bottom. Especially if the top part is not nearly as heavy as the bottom part (which is always the case, because the bottom has much more support, and is therefore heavier, not to mention the top part only a few stories, it did not have nearly enough mass to destroy the complete tower beneath it). Trust me i'm an engineer. The top part would need to be at least 40 times heavier to be able to crush the bottom part like it did, unless all the support was blown away at precisely timed intervals with small explosions starting at the bottom of the tower.

Regarding the bolded point, did you notice how the top part of the S. Tower falling over and then suddenly the building starts to fall straight down? This made no sense to me, as clearly the least resistance would be to continue falling over and not go straight down. Looks like I wasn't the only one to notice that.
 
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/
snippet:

When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.

The only way we didn’t have the top 34-floor section lying in a heap beside the tower is that it fell apart – or more likely blew apart – at the beginning of the collapse. The reason we’ve let this fact slip by most of us is that the top of the building is quickly disappears amid all the smoke and debris. We never see it again.

But here’s the most important point: Newton wouldn’t be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical collapse that followed. With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? In fact, how could it exert any force at all? And how could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the collapse wasn’t symmetrical when it started.

Further: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
snippet

- therefore the energy from the structure above would – in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the structure, below. In theory, the “cap” should have torn loose and independently fallen. However, if there had been an independent - and nearly simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue - vertically. The “cap” tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did not fall off; it collapsed – "in formation” - with the rest of the structure. The simultaneous "fall" of the two sections tells a story, by itself. The 'center of gravity' of the "cap" abruptly found a vertical path to the ground! The most probable reality being that the core collapsed, inducing the tilt of the "cap."

If the "cap" had tilted first, the mechanical tilt of the “cap” should have relieved a major portion of the purely vertical stress from above; alleviating any tendency for the immediate lower structure to “pancake;” as was witnessed. It is not difficult to imagine the floors collapsing over a period of time - but NOT simultaneously!

[BombaUcigasa]

all nice numbers, but they're meaningless,

Meaningless yes, but at lest correct. It's important when you debate to not blatantly lie. It shows you have a deluded agenda or you are an ignorant idiot.

One thing that I did not look into is radiative heat. Having one surface burn at 500C is not the same as having a volume burn at 500C. The heat is transferred by several processes, one of which is IR radiation. Several floors are burning for about an hour and any trapped heat will cause either violent air ventilation due to convection of heated air, or hot-spots that have temperatures above individual fires.

[BombaUcigasa]

And, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.

Explosives!

[dnaleor]

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

Seriously, people need to wake up.

false flags, false falgs everywhere...

Would be nice to have a Rpietila "The truth behind 911" thread though. 

Just for the fun, rename this thread to "Reptilian The truth behind 911 thread" 

[hdbuck]

What do you guys think of General Wesley Clark's approach to 911?

-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4DgsCqP8U

He seems quite legit, a true american patriot that does not have obvious reason to lie about what he experienced at the highest levels of the State.




+ what about Larry Silverstein, who bought WTC for a nugget barely a year before the attack (whilst engaging in renovating and putting those buildings in adequate standards), but added a special article about "terrorists attacks" in the $5+ Billion insurance policy not even a month before it happened?

So IMHO, the main reason WTC went down was because the costs of dismantlement or removing the asbestos were just huge. And so it was somehow just better to blow it up, accusing some terrorists, strengthening the laws (patriot act?! NSA spying?!) to control the population and spread fear amongst it, make profit, and find excuses to mess with middle east countries. Easy.  

edit: and so imho to find the Who, one must not only focus on the How (suicidal beard-gang members with cutters?!): its more about the Why. And one can then argue that 911 did provide a huge hedge to america's puppetmasters, at least for that last decade..

nobody reacted on my theory

[cedivad]

nobody reacted on my theory

It's really interesting.

[AlexGR]

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

If you know any pilots, ask them what's the chance that an amateur pilot (hijacker), would crash the plane HORIZONTALLY on the pentagon, like he was landing or something... This is a very difficult maneuver to perform, especially in a city environment with poles, trees etc (unlike an airport which has much horizontal clearance in most directions).

If you go too slow, you'll stall the plane and crash. If you go too fast, you can't maneuver it as you like through the terrain (which is still mighty difficult in itself with a huge passenger plane, unlike a fighter jet).

Normally an amateur hijacker would fly higher than the pentagon, spot it, then dive into the pentagon with an angle and crash the plane in this manner.

[Its About Sharing]

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

If you know any pilots, ask them what's the chance that an amateur pilot (hijacker), would crash the plane HORIZONTALLY on the pentagon, like he was landing or something... This is a very difficult maneuver to perform, especially in a city environment with poles, trees etc (unlike an airport which has much horizontal clearance in most directions).

If you go too slow, you'll stall the plane and crash. If you go too fast, you can't maneuver it as you like through the terrain (which is still mighty difficult in itself with a huge passenger plane, unlike a fighter jet).

Normally an amateur hijacker would fly higher than the pentagon, spot it, then dive into the pentagon with an angle and crash the plane in this manner.

And on top of that, the maneuver that pilot did was pretty impossible. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

[AlexGR]

And on top of that, the maneuver that pilot did was pretty impossible. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

Friend of mine, who has flown Mirage 2000 and F-16s in the Hellenic Air Force, was laughing at the supposed "stunt" of the passenger plane. He said the hit is way more consistent with a cruise missile or, if it was a plane, perhaps a remote controlled one.

Another friend, who is now co-pilot in an Airbus, also questions how is that even possible... he is not sure he could have done it himself so "cleanly" because there are turbulences, obstacles and stuff which would render the feat almost impossible (meaning using the jet to break through the side of the building the way it was done). He believes that so low clearance would have been extremely risky for colliding with terrain objects that would jeopardize the objective (hitting the pentagon) and that there is simply no reason why one would do it that way - plus the impact momentum and blast would be better if one crashed it while diving at an angle.