Zingari Posted 8 November 2011 Author Posted 8 November 2011 care to explain as to why somebum? I disagree with the conspiracy theorists like Zingari & El Empty but at least they offer up videos and explanations for their opinions rather than such an empty statement. i quite understand you Al and i am grateful for your attempt at some sort of even handedness , but try to consider the alternative . Why should anyone who is dismissive, or even doubt the official version of events have to explain themselves any more than those who blindly accept it? This thread is full of snidey dismissive comments made by those who blindly accept the official version , but they are never questioned as to why they accept the official scenario. Only those who question the official version of events seem to to have to produce a full and watertight reason for doing so . Try as an experiment , to ask those who fully accept the official version of events to totally dismiss or give valid reasons to ignore the weight of testimony given by the scholars , pilots architects engineers for 911 truth
The Doctor Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 i quite understand you Al and i am grateful for your attempt at some sort of even handedness, but try to consider the alternative . Why should anyone who is dismissive, or even doubt the official version of events have to explain themselves any more than those who blindly accept it? This thread is full of snidey dismissive comments made by those who blindly accept the official version, but they are never questioned as to why they accept the official scenario. Only those who question the official version of events seem to to have to produce a full and watertight reason for doing so . Try as an experiment, to ask those who fully accept the official version of events to totally dismiss or give valid reasons to ignore the weight of testimony given by the scholars, pilots, architects & engineers for 911 truth I would imagine because the official version of events is just that - official. It's the accepted tale to the events and so people put it to the disbelievers of the official line to prove why they believe the conspiracies over the official story. The snidey, dismissive comments to which you refer are irritating - I enjoy debates like this on here for the intellectual discussion but hate sifting through the generic People who don't believe the same as me are morons /thread responses. Personally I'd say it's up to both sides to provide evidence for them disbelieving the other sides argument - for instance the pentagon bit earlier - some, such as El Empty, don't believe a plane can break through those walls and presents to us his evidence for believing it, people such as me then counter with our evidence as to why we believe it is possible and, for me, that is the key point of these threads, the exchange of ideas and opinions with evidence(s) supplied. However between each of these interesting posts there are several which don't present any argument and instead just contain a simplistic "my belief is right" opinion attempting to masquerade as a factual, sensible post. Put simply I can see where you're coming from with your post but I'd reckon that the way modern society is structured puts the emphasis on disproving the official line than proving it. Now then, the video you posted up looks interesting and I look forward to attempting to debunk it, but I reckon you'll struggle for much response on the videos you and Empty post up here because they are so long and, when sat at a computer, people tend to have better uses of 2 hours than watching a conspiracy video. Oh and " Only those who question the official version of events seem to to have to produce a full and watertight reason for doing so ." I've got to disagree there, people from both sides have produced full reasons for believing what they do, and I wouldn't say either sides argument is watertight.
lcfcadam Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Not sure if anyone has put forward the third point of view that people have with regard to 9/11. We have the conspiracy theorists, and we have those who just accept the official story. What about those (such as myself) who simply do not give a shit? "The people died, the buildings are gone, and now it's time to stop thinking about it and move on" is pretty much my view on the matter. I appreciate this is probably the wrong place to post this (as in "why would I look through a thread entitled "Mystery of WTC 7" if I already know I'm not interested in its content?") but thought I'd just introduce another widespread viewpoint that as far as I can tell hasn't been represented here so far...
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 The main reason why I accept the official version is that I am unable to ignore the weight of testomony given by scholars, pilots, architects and engineers. Also there is the W.W.W.H. that is dismissed as insignificant by the Truthers.I also feel somewhat like lcfcadam. This thread has been dug up so many times, each time a new theory is put forward with fresh 'evidence' or some 'expert' who has laid dormant for 20 years and suddenly decides to come forward. I may be synical but maybe he needs a little extra cash for his retirement.. Convincing a conspiracy theorist that they may be mistaken is like convincing a Bible Belt Christian that the world is older than 6000 years old. I'm going bed and forget about this.
shen Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Not sure if anyone has put forward the third point of view that people have with regard to 9/11. We have the conspiracy theorists, and we have those who just accept the official story. What about those (such as myself) who simply do not give a shit? "The people died, the buildings are gone, and now it's time to stop thinking about it and move on" is pretty much my view on the matter. I appreciate this is probably the wrong place to post this (as in "why would I look through a thread entitled "Mystery of WTC 7" if I already know I'm not interested in its content?") but thought I'd just introduce another widespread viewpoint that as far as I can tell hasn't been represented here so far... Meh. You could say the same for everything else. Some love football, some hate it and some just don't give a damn. But apart from you stating the obvious, I think it's wrong too. You can't just lump people into 'conspiracy theorists' and 'official story believers'. I'm one of the many lodged in between who try to make sense of it all. I'm skeptical about both sides and their accounts and don't believe either holds the truth.
lcfcadam Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Meh. You could say the same for everything else. Some love football, some hate it and some just don't give a damn. But apart from you stating the obvious, I think it's wrong too. You can't just lump people into 'conspiracy theorists' and 'official story believers'. I'm one of the many lodged in between who try to make sense of it all. I'm skeptical about both sides and their accounts and don't believe either holds the truth. But ultimately I probably have a similar viewpoint to you - I'm well aware that members of the general public probably rarely get to hear the whole story about major events, and that what they get fed through the media is entirely influenced by various governments... the difference for me is that I really don't care any more; to me, continuing to discuss the matter will never achieve anything other than to keep the ongoing negative impact of the event in the spotlight. Obviously you can tell I'm very much not a conspiracy theorist, and I also accept that the "official" version of events is kinda flawed. But whatever the case, even in the extremely unlikely event that the truth was fully exposed, it wouldn't change the things that have happened. Personally I'd rather look forward to a rejuvenated New York that's back to its fantastic prime (it seemed well on the path in 2007 when I visited, but still had some way to go), a New York that doesn't forget about 9/11, but also doesn't dwell on it. In my opinion, furthering the conspiracy theories only amounts to dwelling on it...
Darkon84 Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 This is the full length version of the 2011 tenth anniversary architects and engineers 911 truth film that disputes the official version of the collapse of WTC7. At over 2 hours it is quite long but if you can spare little more time than the length of a football match, then I assure you it is well worth it. The film is expert packed rather than action packed ,so please dont expect to be entertained and quite a lot of the film is given up to introducing the experts and their qualifications so we can ascertain if their opinions are relevant or valid . (Note; this is quite rare in any debunking videos) This is not a film put together by tin foil hat wearing fruit loops but is solely made up of testimonies and opinions by eminent experts in their field of architecture engineering and demolition. No doubt there are plenty more experts on FoxesTalk with opposing views and with greater understanding of architecture, engineering and demolition than these experts so Id really like to hear from you to dispel my lingering doubts about the official explanation. The last 20 minutes or so is basically dedicated to those that have trouble doubting the official version of events due to cognitive dissonance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ Fantastic video Certainly something that everyone should watch, no matter which version of events they beleive. Personally, I'm with The Architects/Engineers team......It just seems to make sense. I still respect people that go with the official report though, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and judgement. There have been some very good debates on here, but unfortunately, some pathetic petty shite aswell, but hey, isnt that what this place is for?
somebum Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 care to explain as to why somebum? I disagree with the conspiracy theorists like Zingari & El Empty but at least they offer up videos and explanations for their opinions rather than such an empty statement. I can't be bothered LargeAl. I have literally spent weeks of my life arguing against the official story, it is just a waste of energy since people will believe what they want.
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 I think there are more important issues to be addressed.
Dr The Singh Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Yes but what about the aforementioned Poon ? surely that's more interesting than conspiracy theory's? My type of guy!!!
Babylon Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Personally, I'm with The Architects/Engineers team......It just seems to make sense. You make it sound like every architect / engineer out there thinks it's not right. It's a very tiny minority, and many of the most outspoken profit from doing so. In fact the presenter of your video who is so eager for the truth pays himself a salary of around $80,000 from the ae911truth fund. There are many many many more who see absolutely nothing wrong with the probable causes and events suggested by the official report. The thing is you are searching for stuff that fits in with your vision. If you search for the opposite point of view there are many sites and many people out there debunking everything that has been said. There is also a lot of information shedding light on some of the people in these videos about how qualified they actually are, how shady some of them are, and how many of them have a predilection for conspiracy theories and extreme views.
somebum Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 You make it sound like every architect / engineer out there thinks it's not right. It's a very tiny minority, and many of the most outspoken profit from doing so. In fact the presenter of your video who is so eager for the truth pays himself a salary of around $80,000 from the ae911truth fund. There are many many many more who see absolutely nothing wrong with the probable causes and events suggested by the official report. The thing is you are searching for stuff that fits in with your vision. If you search for the opposite point of view there are many sites and many people out there debunking everything that has been said. There is also a lot of information shedding light on some of the people in these videos about how qualified they actually are, how shady some of them are, and how many of them have a predilection for conspiracy theories and extreme views. Some people bad = entire argument flawed ?
Babylon Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Some people bad = entire argument flawed ? Not really, I would say the fact there is absolutely no evidence to prove a conspiracy. The fact millions and millions of engineers and architects worldwide (who don't profit from their point of view) seeing absolutely nothing wrong with the official version of events is a rather more compelling point. The fact many of them profit from it, the fact some people commenting on it aren't qualified to do so, the fact some believe in and profit from other conspiracies also just adds to peoples skepticism of their views.
Darkon84 Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 You make it sound like every architect / engineer out there thinks it's not right. It's a very tiny minority, and many of the most outspoken profit from doing so. In fact the presenter of your video who is so eager for the truth pays himself a salary of around $80,000 from the ae911truth fund. There are many many many more who see absolutely nothing wrong with the probable causes and events suggested by the official report. The thing is you are searching for stuff that fits in with your vision. If you search for the opposite point of view there are many sites and many people out there debunking everything that has been said. There is also a lot of information shedding light on some of the people in these videos about how qualified they actually are, how shady some of them are, and how many of them have a predilection for conspiracy theories and extreme views. I dont think I make it look like'every architect thinks it' at all. If you think it came across like that, I apologise, it wasnt meant to. Its obvious that not every architect etc on the planet will agree with each other, just as I said that not every person on here will agree. Thats just a fact of life, and for me, it makes life more interesting. You say Im searching for things that fit in with my vision, but isnt that what you are doing in order to try and say that my opinion is wrong? Yes, there are many many people out there to debunk the conspiracies etc, but there are also alot of people to debunk those people, and so on and so on. And as for the final paragraph, basically saying that some people are shady etc.....Ive got news for you, theres plenty of people in this world that are shady or trying to get 'one over' on somebody, just look at some politicians, some of the fat cat bankers etc....Id be amazed if they were all in it to be responisble and to make the world a better place, and not in it for financial gain or power. Aaaanyhow, I'll leave that for now, all my previous post basically said, was that the video raised some good points and I stated my opinion. I wasnt trying to get, nor was I expecting a response like the one you gave. Sorry
somebum Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Not really, I would say the fact there is absolutely no evidence to prove a conspiracy. The fact millions and millions of engineers and architects worldwide (who don't profit from their point of view) seeing absolutely nothing wrong with the official version of events is a rather more compelling point. The fact many of them profit from it, the fact some people commenting on it aren't qualified to do so, the fact some believe in and profit from other conspiracies also just adds to peoples skepticism of their views.
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 I would like to know how, whoever planted the explosives that caused a controlled explosion, knew about the attack on the Twin Towers and what damage beforehand would be caused to surrounding buildings so as to place the explosives in exactly right spot and time the demolition to coincide with the attack. I know it may not seem significant b tothe experts but an answer would go some way to sway my opinions. So humour me and provide an answer.
Zingari Posted 8 November 2011 Author Posted 8 November 2011 Ok, using the same reasoning that this is a small minority who are speaking out against the official version of collapse of WTC and therefore the majority who are silent must agree with the official version. (And this is a big assumption in my view and not necessarily true) Why did this majority of architects and engineers who heard about the WTC towers being built to withstand fire and airliner collision not rise up in unison and demand that no such guarantee is possible and that fires will totally destroy steel buildings? Surely if they are satisfied with the explanation that fire can cause total collapse now, then no such outrageous claims should have been tolerated prior to 911. These 3 steel structured collapses are the first (and last) and should be of enormous interest to architects , structural engineers to ascertain what caused such total failure . What changes have been made to the steel structured design to ensure that no steel building will again collapse due to fire . I’d hazard a guess that there hasn’t been any significant ones . http://forum.building.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?tid=2343
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 I don't really think, when being built the architects said 'Oh shouldn't we make the structure a bit stronger just in case some terorists hijack an airliner and crsh into it?'
Zingari Posted 8 November 2011 Author Posted 8 November 2011 I don't really think, when being built the architects said 'Oh shouldn't we make the structure a bit stronger just in case some terorists hijack an airliner and crsh into it?' err yes they did this is Frank de Martini construction manager talking about it prior to 911 he died on the day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU and once more ad nauseum WTC 7 was NOT HIT by a plane why did no-one say he was talking bollox at the time ?
Babylon Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 What changes have been made to the steel structured design to ensure that no steel building will again collapse due to fire . I’d hazard a guess that there hasn’t been any significant ones . http://forum.building.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?tid=2343 I think the answer to your own question is in the link provided. " 99.99 % of buidlings in the UK would not survive being hit by a passenger plane irrespective of any changes to the regs - think about it, what would you have to do a building to prevent such impact damage ? A light steelclad shed ? A domestic dwelling ? Even a tower block ? Until we get Trekkie style force fields around our buildings -- keep wearing your hard hat just in case" "A 100 tonne, 6 metre diameter metal tube with a pointed end hitting a building - ANY BUILDING - at 500mph is gonna do some serious damage. Fill the metal tube with aviation fuel and ANYTHING it hits is gonna burn. What regs would YOU put in place?" "There are possibly some changes to Part A on the way in respect of disproportionate collapse /structural eurocodes and work to existing buildings . However they are not directly related to 9/11 and as stated how do you stop 300 people in a steel tube eating their dinner at 300 mph from flattening the gherkin. "
Dr The Singh Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 I think the answer to your own question is in the link provided. " 99.99 % of buidlings in the UK would not survive being hit by a passenger plane irrespective of any changes to the regs - think about it, what would you have to do a building to prevent such impact damage ? A light steelclad shed ? A domestic dwelling ? Even a tower block ? Until we get Trekkie style force fields around our buildings -- keep wearing your hard hat just in case" "A 100 tonne, 6 metre diameter metal tube with a pointed end hitting a building - ANY BUILDING - at 500mph is gonna do some serious damage. Fill the metal tube with aviation fuel and ANYTHING it hits is gonna burn. What regs would YOU put in place?" "There are possibly some changes to Part A on the way in respect of disproportionate collapse /structural eurocodes and work to existing buildings . However they are not directly related to 9/11 and as stated how do you stop 300 people in a steel tube eating their dinner at 300 mph from flattening the gherkin. " Make sense, after the 'fireball' accident of quite a few cars and trucks on the weekend, shows what speed, abit of metal and abit of fuel can do!!!
Babylon Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 Why did this majority of architects and engineers who heard about the WTC towers being built to withstand fire and airliner collision Built to withstand fires? Yes. Built to withstand fires when the fireproof cladding had been knocked off by the impact of a jet, damage to any sprinkler systems present, and fires propelled by jet fuel? Built to withstand the physical effects of a jet crash? They believed it would. Built to withstand a jet crash, the removal of fireproofing, fires of that magnitude raging etc etc? Separate the two events and you have an argument, combine the two events and suddenly you have a lot of different factors colliding that were not thought of at the time.
Babylon Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 err yes they did this is Frank de Martini construction manager talking about it prior to 911 he died on the day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU and once more ad nauseum WTC 7 was NOT HIT by a plane why did no-one say he was talking bollox at the time ? 1911 - Designer of the Titanic. "As far as it is possible to do so, this wonderful vessel has been designed to be unsinkable" Titanic was designed by experienced engineers, using some of the most advanced technologies and extensive safety features of the time. But a chain of unforeseen events took place that meant it did indeed sink. Perhaps it was a government conspiracy to kill some of the people on board? I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.
Rincewind Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 err yes they did this is Frank de Martini construction manager talking about it prior to 911 he died on the day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU and once more ad nauseum WTC 7 was NOT HIT by a plane why did no-one say he was talking bollox at the time ? WT7 may not have been directly hit but there was a lot of damage caused to it caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers. The video to support the controlled explosion only shows one side of the building and from a distance.
Zingari Posted 9 November 2011 Author Posted 9 November 2011 1911 - Designer of the Titanic. "As far as it is possible to do so, this wonderful vessel has been designed to be unsinkable" Titanic was designed by experienced engineers, using some of the most advanced technologies and extensive safety features of the time. But a chain of unforeseen events took place that meant it did indeed sink. Perhaps it was a government conspiracy to kill some of the people on board? I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make. Quite so Ok lets continue with that analogy Did they continue to make ships of the same design? Probably not Did they adapt the fault of ship? Probably Have they made any alterations to building design standards and steel heat bearing capability? Have they stopped firemen entering steel structured buildings with minor fires because of fear of total collapse? I’d hazard a guess that no changes have been made in either steel quality or structural design because none are necessary as buildings such as these or an other steel buildings will totally collapse unless they are intentionally demolished I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.