The_Jazz

Yeah, 'cause OBVIOUSLY all of the problems in the world are caused by Muslims, Communists and liberals.

If you ever want to be taken seriously, I suggest that you not make blanket statements like that. It makes you look like you don't have any original thoughts, which is clearly not the case.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Baraka_Guru

Well....no.... totalitarian nations tend to have quite efficient governments. Try there.

I can't decide whether this idea is more facile or fascist. I'm not sure I need to pick just one.

Um, dude.... you're in the paranoia forum. Didn't you look before you clicked?

No one needs to be taken seriously here.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Jazz

If anyone wonders what happened to Baraka_Guru, I didn't ban him.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Eddie38

Well, I wouldn't say all, but, maybe you're right.

Baraka_Guru

You forgot the Africans.

I'm pretty sure that there were fewer problems before there were liberals and communists because of all of those entrenched monarchies.

Those damn liberals...wanting their damn freedoms....

Well if we get our Orwellian reality in a post-9/11 world, in a way it's like a return to a kind of monarchical system where people are ruled not by consent, but by some supernatural force. You know, like spectral enemies and corrupt ideals like Truth and Justice.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Eddie38

Even though the staged demolition of the WTC was planned and prepared for years before taking place, this video shows that certain preparations were being made up to a week before the Bilderberg group brought the towers down.

Sun Tzu

This has been stuck in my head since reading. At the end of everything- this is life. Even if views like mine think there is small elite that live above this. . . its where Im at and will always be . Beautifully disturbing. I will read more of his work.

Eddie I think you may have misunderstood me or didnt convey my question well enough. I see the Star Trek scenerio as a universal theme where the world has united. In a way even though the Federation packs some pretty heavy warships its a new world order done the right way. Here we are nine years later and things seem to be only getting worse.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

It wasnt Bilderberg-

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Eddie38

Ah, the wonderful effects of PCP.

Sun Tzu, I understood your Star Trek analogy just fine. But Star Trek wasn't a one world united theme, it was an inter-galactic, inter-planetary theme. The only way it worked was because the different cultures and belief systems were separated by planets. They each had their own happy, little planet to live on. Whereas in real life, we're all stuck on the same planet. It will never work.

MSD

It's not a pleasant thought, but you're entirely right.
On the Bullshit Bingo card, claiming that "they" are persecuting you like they did to Galileo is the free space in the center. It's a nice ploy to try to get some sympathy, but in the end the difference is that Galileo was right and whoever is making the argument is wrong.
I'm just going to copy and paste this because I don't feel like rewriting what will amount to the same thing
WTC 7

Let me start with one thing: "A steel framed building has never collapsed from fire alone."
This is often accompanies a picture of a building that was hit by a plane and burned for hours, I think it was a hotel in Sweden or something like that. For the Pentagon part of today's lesson, note that there is no identifiable part of the plane visible. Now about that claim about fire, let me present Delft University's Architecture building, which collapsed after an fire sparked by a shorted out coffee machine burned out of control for over 5 hours. There wasn't even a plane crash! Nobody was hurt, and contrary to initial reports, the extensive library was unharmed by fire and smoke.

Watch this video. At about 9 seconds, the building buckles in the middle and collapses as would be expected from a controlled demolition. Might as well leave the window open, we're going to come back to it in a minute.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES...ocked.down.wmv

WTC 7 suffered damage from fire and impact of debris from the towers, a section 10 floors high was scooped out to a depth of 1/4 to 1/3 of the building's area.

First of all, the fire burned for 9 hours. The sprinkler systems required manual activation of pumps and everyone had already evacuated. NIST reports indicate that a pressurized diesel fuel line running to the 5th floor generators was not a major cause as previously theorized, but that fire was fueled constantly until fuel tanks were empty. Two hours before the collapse, the building was visibly buckling because the fire had weakened its structure.

WTC 7 was constructed with a combination of support beams and transfer girders. Upon structural failure of any support, the load would be transfered to surrounding beams. Column 72 on the 13th floor was the first to fail due to decreased strength from fires. Loads were transferred toward the east end of the building, and the east penthouse collapsed, overloading support structures and allowing collapse to progress toward the west of the building.

WTC7 did not collapse at freefall speeds. Go back to the video, and look at the top left of the building as the video starts. What you see at 2-3 seconds is the East Penthouse collapsing. For the next 7 seconds, columns are failing until they can no longer support the building and it collapses in on the most heavily damaged part, with intact sections holding up the longest.

"We decided to pull it" is another truther favorite, claiming that it means they were going to demolish the building. Unfortunately for them, this is not a phrase used by demolition contractors. On the other hand, if "it" refers to emergency services' attempts to save a building that was already a complete write-off due to extensive structural damage and several floors engulfed in flames in addition to a fire on the 5th floor fed by a pressurized diesel line (used to supply generators) with tens of thousands of gallons of fuel oil in the basement and no way to safely shut it off, it makes a lot more sense.

Eddie38

Excuse my naivety, but I'll stick with the expert opinion of 1300 certified, licensed architects and engineers over yours. AE911Truth.org But thanks for playing.

Pearl Trade

Those 1300 are humans subject to bias and paranoia, just as you are. By your standard, we should all trust what Obama says to the word just because he holds the highest government position in the US.

How many architects and engineers don't think taking down the towers was a conspiracy? I bet it's over 1300. I'll look for a link to try and find an exact number.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Eddie38

Not trusting the government isn't paranoia, it's common sense. The agenda of the rich and powerful that run our government isn't exactly in the best interest of American citizens. The motive of the 1300 architects and engineers is truth, we want to find out the truth. As far as the number of architects and engineers that believe the official 9/11 report, who knows. But what is known is that stepping forward and publicly questioning the Official version is not a great career move, so it doesn't surprise me that most architects and engineers that suspect foul play simply keep their mouths shut.

Baraka_Guru

To put this into perspective, there are more than 86,000 member architects registered with the American Institute of Architects.

One estimate puts the total number of architects in America at 233,000. Another states that there are approximately 700 architects for every million people.

Let's look at the lower number: 86,000 member architects. Let's assume that even as many as 1,000 of the 1,300 on AE911Truth.org are architects vs. being engineers. If we assumed just for a moment that these member architects represent the total number of architects in America, even that would mean barely 1% of them are a part of this group. This is a conservative estimate compared to the overall number of architects. I would be more confident to state that a mere fraction of 1% of architects in America are apart of this group. A small fraction.

This doesn't necessarily mean that non-members don't believe what this group says, but it does highlight the fact that a tiny minority of architects are amongst their number.

I would go as far as to say that I wouldn't be surprised if far more than 1,300 architects believe that this group is an embarrassment to their trade.

And also consider that I haven't even taken the total number of engineers into account.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Eddie38

I would bet that most architects and engineers in this country took one look at the buildings collapsing on 9/11 and new something was fishy. But as I pointed out earlier, publicly voicing an opinion against the government's version of the events is a very unwise career move. So they're just keeping their traps shut and going on with their lives.

MSD

That's not my opinion, it's a summary of what I learned from reading reports and expert opinions of materials engineers, structural engineers, and architects who are much more qualified than I am to speak on the subject. Not just a bunch of random guys with engineering degrees, I went for people like MIT professors and the head of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Since you're citing a website and your evidence was a bunch of Youtube links, I'm going to assume that they're all more qualified than you are, too.

There are 233,000 architects in the US as Baraka_Guru mentioned above. According the the BLS, there are roughly 1.6 million engineers in the US, of which 565,800 Civil, Mechanical, Industrial, or Materials Engineers. That means 1 out of every 614 engineers and architects, rounding down, whose field is directly relevant to the subject at hand (assuming a normal distribution among engineering professions) agrees with you. The number you "would bet" actually agree with you is irrelevant because you can't provide any proof to support that argument, much like you haven't provided any proof to support any claims you've made in this thread, which I am once again done with because nobody has said anything worth being discussed.

Eddie38

MSD, your logic is nonsensical. The only architects and engineers that fit into this discussion are those who have publicly voiced an opinion on the matter, otherwise, we have no way of knowing where they stand on the issue. You can't just automatically assume that all of the unspoken architects and engineers agree with the government's version of 9/11. And as far as architects and engineers that have voiced their opinion, the number of those who oppose the official 9/11 report outnumber those who agree with it. So, really, you're the one who lacks proof or substance in your argument.

Zodijackyl

Do you understand what the status quo is? The majority of these professionals - architects and engineers - are practitioners in these fields and would experience a substantial gain by properly challenging the status quo (the 9/11 report), for their academic, professional, and personal gain. Should any one of these thousands of individuals substantiate this claim, they would gain incredible fame, academic standing, and personal success.

Few have challenged the status quo because they have no grounds on which to challenge it. If there was a conspiracy to conceal it, if would undoubtedly be revealed by one of the thousands of professionals in this field who tend to be biased towards their own personal gain. Should any of them disprove the 9/11 Report, they would be elevated to a god-like status among their colleagues, who all have a post-graduate education studying things such as this. If there was a proper challenge to the status quo, there would undoubtedly be wide publication of it, between academic journals and the international free press.

Unfortunately for your argument, none of this has happened. 98%+ of the professionals in this field have agreed with the status quo, even if they did so silently. As the concept of logic goes, they can submit to the status quo, or they can reject the status quo. Logic dictates that these people either subscribe to the status quo, or they dissent.

The mind of the conspiracy theorist is as such: subscribe to a belief, then justify the belief by whatever means necessary. Logic works in reverse - justify a belief, then subscribe to the belief. Via the common sensibility of logic, we know that the majority of experts in this field subscribe to the status quo, rather than being indifferent as you suggest. These individuals have a stake of massive personal gain should they successfully disprove the status quo, but they do not.

The status quo is the 9/11 Report - which despite the twenty-something minor factual inaccuracies - is the belief of the majority. Logic dictates that the center of belief is the status quo, which is passively supported, rather than passively opposed. Understand that logic and the mind of the majority work as such: evidence and explanation justify belief. In the mind of the conspiracy theorist, belief justifies any evidence and explanation willing to support such a claim. Both absolute and relative neutrality are far from your claims, and your justification is alien to either.

For a final point of consideration, take the mass of a 767 and multiply it by the in-flight speed of the same plane. Ask any architect or engineer if they even take such a force, in Newtons, into consideration when designing buildings. This is just a start in justification preceding explanation, rather than explanation preceding justification. These are core components of undergraduate studies, as well as common sense - they are required in a standardized undergraduate education, which each of these professionals received. Being aware of this status-quo-centric education, can you challenge these professionals on this basis, or do you assume that 98%+ of these highly educated individuals are indifferent towards what is arguably the biggest issue in their field of study in decades?

Eddie38

I'm pretty sure you're not actually serious when you suggest that accusing the government of masterminding a massive cover-up while at the same time setting yourself on the fringe with conspiracy theorists and freaks is a wise career move. No, you wouldn't be that foolish.