Comparisons are made because Hitler had the Reichstag and Bush had 9-11. Both were reasons to invade a sovereign nation on BS pretexts. Both were false flag ops to promote national unity to fight a common enemy.the ignorance of people is astonishing.thats the most hysterical thing I have ever heard that Bush is a good man.yeah so was Hitler and Stalin.
Its astonishing that anyone would compare Bush with Hitler and Stalin.
If your goal is to convince others of your thesis, making such analogies discredits you instantly. So you may want to refrain from doing so.
A Question of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
- Thread starter DManInAZ
- Start date
Comparisons are made because Hitler had the Reichstag and Bush had 9-11. Both were reasons to invade a sovereign nation on BS pretexts. Both were false flag ops to promote national unity to fight a common enemy.the ignorance of people is astonishing.thats the most hysterical thing I have ever heard that Bush is a good man.yeah so was Hitler and Stalin.
Its astonishing that anyone would compare Bush with Hitler and Stalin.
If your goal is to convince others of your thesis, making such analogies discredits you instantly. So you may want to refrain from doing so.
And Stalin?
When Hitler is referenced, people don't think of the Reichstag. If your goal is to convince people, making any reference to Hitler is remarkably dumb, because unless you are talking to the True Believers, everyone else - including the undecided - will say "that's idiotic" since Hitler conjures up visions of genocide and barbarity, not the Reichstag.
you are trying to use reason and common sense withy someone that thinks Bush was able to pull off a false flag op on 9/11
Big_D
Member
For every Richard Gage (no education or experience in structural or forensic engineering) you bring up I can link to 100's of structural engineers who disagree with his emotion-laced findings, including Gene Corley (BS civil engineering, MS structural engineering, PhD structural engineering, licensed in 18 states and chartered in the UK).
oh please do...530+ Engineers and Architects
Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report
I cant believe this thread is STILL going on.But since it IS not only that Eots-everybody always ignores you when you point that out about the 500 plus engineers cause their in denial,but Gene Corley has been proven to be a corrupt man as well.I will show that tomorrow.all the stuff you posted on page two alone proves it was an inside job and explosives were used.any person who reads THAT and STILL defends the official version is a complete moron.
As I have said to you before, the petition that these engineer/architects signed did NOT state that they believe 9/11 was an inside job. It clearly states that they simply want a new investigation. Because someone wants a new investigation does not mean they believe it was an inside job.
If Gene Corley has been proven to be a corrupt man than please provide evidence proving this.
If you want evidence of what engineers are saying about the attacks then you have to look no further than the following two articles:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
As I have been saying, these two articles have been read and approved by the the engineering division of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. The people who wrote and approved those two article are among the top engineering minds in the world. Nobody cannot can get to their position without being voted or appointed in by other engineering experts. They are professors at the best engineering schools in the world. Look at the list of engineers who approved those two papers:
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
No other article about the attacks can be more credible as it hasn't passed this group. As oppose to the engineers/architects who signed the petition these experts are actually stating their view on 9-11 and that is the official version.
Last edited:
The goal is to get people to think with more of an open mind about their country, if comparing Bush with Hitler automatically makes people think what you say, then that is proof society is programmed to think a certain way at the mere mention of a name or topic. All one has to do is ask why the comparison is made. That's the problem, no one asks why about anything. Many people today frequently dismiss information without questioning it, without considering it and in many cases without even looking at it.
Because CNN and FOX news figure it for them
Godboy
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 39,836
- 22,870
- 1,905
This statement is a cop out. There is a big difference between programming people and simply informing them of world history. History is taught to humans starting from a young age, and obviously Hitler is a big part of human history, let alone current history. If it was YOUR job to teach young kids who Hitler was, you are well aware that it would be a complete waste of time to spend a day teaching them about how much Hitler loved his German shepards, because doing so would not be true to what he really was...a monster. Every person has done something good in their life, no matter how evil that person is theyve done something good at some point, but you would be doing those children a big injustice to only teach them about the good things Hitler did, because those good things dont hold any significance to his place in world history.
Which brings us back to what really matters, what you claimed we were programmed to think...Hitler was a madman who killed millions. When you say Hitler, it brings up images death and destruction, not because we are "programmed" to think that way, but because it WAS THAT WAY. MANY people died, and theres countless hours of black and white footage to prove it. Its the most horrible thing ever documented and this documentation is ingrained in our minds, for obvious the reason...because it was absolutely terrible.
When you compare someone to Hitler, what fucking other thing would we think youre talking about? I mean, if you say Bush is just like Hitler, im certainly not thinking...."a man with a fondness for German shepards"!
You said a stupid thing. Why not, instead of trying to back peddle with this "programmed" nonsense, just own up to your mistake and not make it again in the future?
Last edited:
This is a thread about 9-11, not the Holocaust. Like I said before Hitler had the Reichstag and Bush had 9-11 that is the comparison, if your too stupid to understand that read some history on false flag ops.
except 9/11 wasnt a false flag like you nutters believe
So they must want a new investigation because why? Because the official story is flawed.
The resume of Dr. W. Gene Corley demonstrates that he has a long history of being a shill for the U S Government.
Blah blah blah... I took the time to check out one of your links regarding the experts you speak of so highly, and I found that the
Scholars for 9-11 Truth have written a paper in the Journal of 9/11 Studies that is a refutation of what your experts wrote and subsequently NIST agreed with. Specifically this one written by Zdenek P. Bazant, and Yong Zhou.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
It is interesting to read exactly what your experts are claiming, and the response to it. Basically your guys say that the top 12 floors they call RB-12 (RIGID BLOCK) crashed down on the remaining structure
DS-6 (DAMAGED STRUCTURE 6floors) and RB-92 the remaining undamaged stories of the WTC.
"What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell
with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum,
and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way
to the ground. The NIST Final Report does not tell us what happened to RB-12+ after its impact with the two
structures beneath it. Did it fall through them all the way to the ground (that is, to the rubble heap
on the ground), maintaining considerable mass and rigidity the whole time--as Bazant argued in
2001 and has continued to argue? On this the NIST authors are silent.
NIST also does not tell us how far RB-12+ fell before its impact with intact structure. Did it fall
one story (roughly 12 feet), or several stories? We are left in the dark. Once again Bazant comes
to the rescue. It fell “at least one story,” he says. [13]
To his credit, Bazant is willing to state the essential elements of the hypothesis. If this hypothesis
is to hold any water at all there must be substantial impact: RB-12+ has a lot of work to do, so it
had better fall at least one story.
As we will show, for the purposes of the present refutation it does not matter whether RB-12+
fell one story, six stories, or somewhere in between."
"The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:
“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.
[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”
The Scholars For 9-11 Truth took the time to thoroughly examine footage of the north tower collapse and take measurements and are very thorough. And they blow Bazant's and NIST's theory away. Check it out yourself.
STJ911 Blog
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf
They also say--"It is
also important to note here that Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the
stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate. [8] The actual stiffness, calculated here
using the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m. (see Appendices B and C)
[19][20] This error of Bazant’s caused him to significantly overestimate the potential amplifying
effect of the impulse or jolt he claims occurred after a one story fall of the upper block.
Conclusions:
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9
stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt
deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the
absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion
of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors
of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
My Conclusion after studying this: The NIST report and it's authors are full of shit.
Last edited:
You haven't looked into the events before or after 9-11 much have you? Or read about false flag ops?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
The sheer number of people that would have to be involved for this to be a false flag operation is staggering. Thousands of people from all walks of life would need to be intimately involved. Security Guards and administrators as well as regular employees of most firms in the towers would have to have either been involved or to stupid to notice massive construction on numerous floors and the basement, they would have had to have blinders on to miss the cut support columns and the explosives and intricate wiring needed to bring the Towers down on 9/11, all done at least WEEKS before the attack.
Airport security at 4 separate airports, passengers on at least two of the hijacked jets that phoned family about the hijackings. Ticketing agents at 4 airports.
The FBI would have to have been involved in large numbers if we are to believe the claims they seized tapes along the route of the Washington DC air liner minutes after it occurred. Someone would have had to fly the plane, load the missile and control the flight for the supposed missile that hit the Pentagon. This would have included weapons loaders, aircrew, maintenance, security, flight line crew, air traffic controllers and at least one AWACS.
The military would have had to be included, all the supposed orders to shut down all intercepts and all air bases the morning of the attack, this would include again, pilots, air crew, flight crew, security, maintenance personnel.
All the eye witnesses that SAW the plane in DC would have had to be in on it. The passengers and crew of the missing plane would have to go somewhere as well as the aircraft, this would include at least one airbase somewhere and all the myriad of people that would have seen the aircraft land. Not to mention the security needed to offload and murder and dispose of the bodies. And then there is the plane itself. It had to go somewhere.
Then we have the supposed cover up. This would require the cooperation of hundreds of investigators from city, county, State and Federal and military to pull off. It would require the cooperation of most of the engineers and architects that agree on what happened. It would require the Mayor and his staff in New York to be in on it.
It would require all the rescue volunteers and workers at ground zero to be in on it, in order to cover up the supposed explosive material and residue that would be left over. The press and emergency medical personnel. The fire fighters that just lost hundreds of fiends and coworkers, the city cops as well.
The number of people that would be involved is staggering. And then to claim all these people from all these different walks of life all agreed to remain silent about it and have done so for 8 years..... Ya I can see where you conspiracy guys have a lock on this situation.
eots
no fly list
you have no idea how many people would of been involved or what demolition techniques where used ..they are all just assumptions made from your very limited knowledge
LOL
what demolition techniques were used?
actually, i have, and i found that all you troofers are fucking moronic idiots
Big_D
Member
Again, this doesn't mean they believe Bush and company planted explosives in the WTC buildings, hit the pentagon with a missile, and shot down a third aircraft. The people who signed it simply want a new investigation. Look at senator Mark Dayton. He wants a new investigation and he does not believe it was an inside job. It is interesting that the conspirators have a petition that states they simply want a new investigation instead of stating, "Sign the following if you believe our govt blew up the WTC buildings." The reason it is not phrased as this is because if they would do this, they know much fewer people would actually sign it. If someone would go to their website you can actually see that a good portion of these people ARE NOT EVEN LICENSED!!! But it doesn't matter as they are NOT saying they believe it was an inside job.
I know you opinion. I asked for evidence to support this.
I have read this. They miss the point of the paper. Here is the journal of debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories response:
"Once accurate computer calculations are carried out, various details of the failure mechanism will doubtless be found to differ from the present simplifying hypotheses. Errors by a factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising, but that would hardly matter since the present analysis reveals order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural resistance.
There have been many interesting, but intuitive, competing explanations of the collapse. To decide their viability, however, it is important to do at least some crude calculations. For example, it has been suggested that the connections of the floor-supporting trusses to the framed tube columns were not strong enough. Maybe they were not, but even if they were it would have made no difference, as shown by the present simple analysis.
The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor. This purpose justifies the optimistic simplifying assumptions regarding survival made at the outset, which include unlimited plastic ductility) i.e., absence of fracture), uniform distribution of impact forces among the columns, disregard of various complication details (e.g., the possibility that the failures of floor-column connections and of core columns preceded the column and tube failure, or that the upper tube got wedged inside the lower tube), etc. "
http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf
Plus, if he is wrong then the following must be wrong as they all approved his paper:
George Deodatis: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Princeton University
Jacob Fish: Department of Civil Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nimal Rajapakse: Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of British Columbia
Keh-Han Wang: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Houston
Jin Ooi: School of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Edinburgh.
Guillermo D. Hahn
epartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Vanderbilt University Hamn-Ching Chen: Department of Civil Engineering at the Texas A&M University
James L. Beck: Applied Mechanics and Civil Engineering at the California Institute of Technology
Arup K. Maji: Department of Civil Engineering at the University of New Mexico
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
Plus, many others that I do not feel like posting.
Last edited:
Big_D
Member
The assumptions made on your side is that these buildings could have had demolition equipment placed and hidden without anyone have proof of noticing or finding them.
eots
no fly list
no individual study means anything without the full release of all suppressed evidence..eyewittness statements..and full panel peer review of all conclusions...something the Bush administration has done everything in its power to avoid....
actually, there has been a ton released, and all of it shows that what happened, happened, yet you guys still deny it
why should they bother to release more classified info for you to deny?
eots
no fly list
oh really... a ton has been released,,any links ?
they've all been posted to you before
it was a waste of time then, why would it be any different now?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The thread where you can document all the good that we get from being kind to immigrsants.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
[Columbia U] Mahmoud Khalil/Joseph Massad's "bibol" of 'balestine'- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 1
Latest Discussions
-
-
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss- Latest: P F Tinmore
-
