A Few Words On Censorship

[tokeless]

Thank you for that Richard. All I have tried to put across is that there are qualified people who are asking serious questions about the events of that day and the official explanation.

[davidbanner99@]

… as I dug deeper, Jones

Tokeless is not referencing jones…

“Have you seen Richard Gage’s lecture, purely from an architectural perspective? He points out that the towers were built to withstand several airliners colliding with them, the way the tower collapsed on itself instead of towards the wound to its side. When you chop a tree down, you make a wedge to one side so it falls in that direction, not straight down. How did girders weighing several tons get flung across large distances from a fire?” - Tokeless

David…you keep asking for qualifications. Gage has been an architect for decades. And until recently… Gage was the CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)…The organization claims to represent more than 3,000 architects and engineers who want a “real investigation” into the 9/11 attacks.

Now, I’m not saying Gage is correct. And I’m not even saying the claim of 3,000 architects is true. But, I don’t think a good way to address the argument of expertise is to keep referencing people that are non experts, that no other member has ever referenced.

Let's put it purely from my own perspective. That is, how the debate -and a bit of referencing - changed my outlook. Other people are quite free to view these conspiracies such as 9/11 as they wish. However, if I was already skeptical before, I'm a lot more skeptical now. As to the actual virus hysteria, I continue to base my position on purely liberal and health, ethical concerns.

[davidbanner99@]

Thank you for that Richard. All I have tried to put across is that there are qualified people who are asking serious questions about the events of that day and the official explanation.

That makes me the only person here that outright rejects the 9/11 theory and that was my position from the beginning.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

That makes me the only person here that outright rejects the 9/11 theory and that was my position from the beginning.

What do you mean? Like you, I reject 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I was only pointing out that you argued that qualifications are important. Tokeless presented a qualified person, Richard Gage. There are plenty of qualified people that believe in various explanations of 9/11 that do not line up with the report offered by the 9/11 commission.

[davidbanner99@]

"tokeless is not referencing jones…
Have you seen Richard Gage’s lecture, purely from an architectural perspective? He points out that the towers were built to withstand several airliners colliding with them, the way the tower collapsed on itself instead of towards the wound to its side"

You're mixing theory with engineering. Even for an elite physicist it would be very touch-and-go to try and predict how a tower would collapse. Einstein was aware of this:

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” ...(Einstein)

One example is when CRT television designers used capacitor voltage droppers in power supply lines because, "theoretically" the maths made sense on paper. In practice, lots of sets caught fire and had to be withdrawn. TV engineers jokingly referred to "the burning Bush"

The truth is you could endlessly debate this area but theory has no proven solution. If you accept the view 9/11 was staged, fair enough. I myself do not.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

You're mixing theory with engineering.

Uh, I’m not mixing anything. Gage made the theoretical claim, not me. And I did not say that I agree with Gage.

If you accept the view 9/11 was staged, fair enough. I myself do not.

Neither do I.

I’m only pointing out that Richard Gage is one expert, among many, that have questioned the explanation of how 9/11 took place.

[tokeless]

You're mixing theory with engineering. Even for an elite physicist it would be very touch-and-go to try and predict how a tower would collapse. Einstein was aware of this:

I'm pretty sure the people that bring down huge towers in controlled demolition use science in order to do so, in the manner they do. These are huge structures and to drop them in their own footprint takes understanding of physics, or do they just dynamite it up, fingers in ears and hope for the best? Obviously I'm being facetious.

[davidbanner99@]

You're mixing theory with engineering.

Uh, I’m not mixing anything. Gage made the theoretical claim, not me. And I did not say that I agree with Gage.

If you accept the view 9/11 was staged, fair enough. I myself do not.

Neither do I.

I’m only pointing out that Richard Gage is one expert, among many, that have questioned the explanation of how 9/11 took place.

It's the King in his invisible suit fable. The originator of the invisible suit produces the initial story. The King and his inner court are taken in. As the theory gains momentum, scholars conclude they can add to their reputation by making the story sound more elaborate. Maybe they outline how the reflectivity of the crystals in the suit elude the eye. So, in some cases those who scoffed at the original theory, now choose to believe in it due to the "more scientific view" offered by a devotee. Yet the fact remains the king is still as naked as the day he was born. In the end it takes someone who couldn't care less about hierarchy and status to shout out, "The king is in the altogether!"
Next point: Issues are raised as to how and why a tower collapsed when struck by an aircraft. There are actually papers on that very subject which address the issue. The whole subject goes beyond just architecture. You need specialisation in structural engineering, possibly geology and physics.
The simple reason I don't give this theory any credence is, I see no logic whatsoever. If someone asked me to create a smokescreen to justify an invasion of Iraq, I would have found a far less costly method than 9/11. At the very least, I'd have shot the planes down first. And ignored Afghanistan altogether in favour of Iraq. Neither is it clear what the 9/11 master plan accomplished. It ended in total defeat for the USA and the establishment of the Taliban in Iraq. It weakened Israel and strengthened Iran. It made Russia the now dominant force in the Middle East.
Despite that, each to their own. I doubt my views will alter the views of others and even less chance mine will change.

[davidbanner99@]

You're mixing theory with engineering. Even for an elite physicist it would be very touch-and-go to try and predict how a tower would collapse. Einstein was aware of this:

I'm pretty sure the people that bring down huge towers in controlled demolition use science in order to do so, in the manner they do. These are huge structures and to drop them in their own footprint takes understanding of physics, or do they just dynamite it up, fingers in ears and hope for the best? Obviously I'm being facetious.

It wasn't a controlled demolition. It was an aircraft hitting a tower building in mid air. There's impact, velocity and thermal combustion issues to factor in. As well as linear strength curves and scores of other factors. Even Einstein might not have been able to put down on paper how an infrastructure could collapse and then it happens just as expected. Your argument is hypothetical, based on what conspiracy theory people claim ti be evidence. Same thing with the Apollo mission. These people disbelieve in manned spaceflights to the moon and will never budge from their beliefs.

[davidbanner99@]

The result of my delvings into conspiracy theory led me to conclude most of it is rooted in profit, christian fundamentalism, social paranoia and politically motivated. It's similar I find to the "UFO cover-up" conspiracies. The crashed objects always seem to land, smack bang in the USA (never South Africa, or New Zealand. The conspiracy leaders tell us that "they" are keeping the evidence secret and "reverse engineering" the spaceships. I found that 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Griffin and UFO abductee Whitley Streiber were both interviewed together. Supposedly they were well paid for their air-time.
What causes it? I have a terrific dvd on the subject. One professor explained that X file culture shapes the way we interpret experience. X Files mostly suggests there are hidden organizations that control all that takes place. Maybe reality is too bleak to contemplate so people find comfort in a created reality. A bit like religion or cults.

[tokeless]

It wasn't a controlled demolition. It was an aircraft hitting a tower building in mid air. There's impact, velocity and thermal combustion issues to factor in. As well as linear strength curves and scores of other factors. Even Einstein might not have been able to put down on paper how an infrastructure could collapse and then it happens just as expected. Your argument is hypothetical, based on what conspiracy theory people claim ti be evidence. Same thing with the Apollo mission. These people disbelieve in manned spaceflights to the moon and will never budge from their beliefs.[/quote]

David, you are entitled to your beliefs, but they aren't based on the same standard of 'evidence', unless you are an expert in structural engineering and physics. If you are by chance, can you explain how building 7 collapsed in the manner of which it did? Many experts are baffled by this, yet you are certain it wasn't. The two towers that fell in free fall speed due to fire on the upper half of the building are equally baffling because they are the first of their type to do that. The fires, created by aviation fuel, which can't melt steel, but can apparently create pulverised concrete and cause steel to be propelled distances is quite something don't you think? The evidence is available if you wish to dispute it, but probably not. You'll distract with tales of Russia, Alex Jones and the Jewish conspiracy and even naked emperors. Perhaps, because it involves the leaders of the free world, the idea that they could enable such acts or ignore the threat, thus facilitating it, is too scary to contemplate? Keep to your opinions David, as will I, but i won't cast aspersions on your psychological profile.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

…can you explain how building 7 collapsed in the manner of which it did? Many experts are baffled by this….The two towers that fell in free fall speed due to fire on the upper half of the building are equally baffling because they are the first of their type to do that. The fires, created by aviation fuel, which can't melt steel, but can apparently create pulverised concrete and cause steel to be propelled distances is quite something don't you think?

It is baffling.

The most plausible explanation is that (1) massive airliners filled with jet fuel traveling hundreds of mph slammed into the towers, inevitably causing the towers to collapse and (2) that even the most knowledgeable of experts are incapable of piecing together the puzzle, ie we are ignorant.

That is Occam’s razor. It posits that the very obvious explanation is most likely the correct explanation. Just because we currently think that aviation fuel can’t do X or that concrete doesn’t do Y, doesn’t mean we are correct. When I say we, I mean collective humanity and our naive understanding of many things, including engineering, physics, math, biology, chemistry, etc.

Instead of us saying, “Jet fuel can’t do X, so it must have been a government plot,” the alternative is to acknowledge our ignorance, admit we are baffled, and say, “Hmm, maybe what we thought we knew about engineering, chemistry, etc. is incorrect. Maybe we have more to learn.”

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

The whole subject goes beyond just architecture. You need specialisation in structural engineering, possibly geology and physics.

This is the issue.

You say, and I paraphrase, “Expertise is required, you can’t trust the opinions of a non-expert, eg you can’t trust a radio show host or a priest when it comes to collapsing towers.”

Fair enough.

So tokeless presents an expert, an architect. And there are many experts in various fields that have legitimate questions.

Your reply is to arbitrarily move the goal post of what type of expertise. You make sh*t up, throwing in a personal opinion that geology and physics might be required.

Really? So tokeless produces experts, but those experts are not good enough based on your opinion, so you make up your own twisted logic, in effect saying, “To understand 9/11 the expert must meet qualifications A, B, C, D, and E.”

Why must they meet those qualifications David? Because you think so? It is your opinion that the expert opinion of an architect with 20 years of experience is not sufficient.

[davidbanner99@]

After decades of study, experts still don't agree what sank the Titanic. I posted below one of scores of counter arguments to claims made about the twintower building. One (which I can't relocate was a physics paper).

Yet, I've been here many times before. What does the copying and pasting of material written by other people prove? Nobody here (myself included) has a clue about how missile impact may affect a building. And my guess is Richard and Tokeless know this. It enables them to avoid an explanation of how the miraculously planned 9/11 brought about a NWO. It ignores the reality the architect of the 9/11 theory Alex Jones has been sued for making money out of his allegations.

Anyway this is just one of many random articles. Proves nothing either way.

"But in controlled explosion demolition experts collapse a building from the bottom not the top. Experts say the windows were blown out as each floor collapsed on to the one below, sending debris and office equipment flying out.

It would also have taken considerable work, which would not have gone unnoticed, to plant sufficient explosives the length of the buildings to bring them down.

The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane

The evidence for this, say sceptics, is that the major damage to the building comprised a roundish blast hole, no't t the more extended destruction some say would be caused by aeroplane wings. Truthers claim parts of a scrapped plane, including the tail, were moved to the Pentagon as part of the fabrication.

This theory ignores the considerable evidence of the bodies of passengers and crew at the site which were photographed. Thousands of people saw the plane circle then fly into the Pentagon. Some quickly photographed the scene. Anyone planting plane debris at the site afterwards would surely have been seen.

World Trade Centre building 7, adjacent to the twin towers, must have been was destroyed by controlled demolition because it was not hit by a plane

This theory is partly based on a remark by the owner of the building who, fearing it was about to collapse, said firefighters inside should be brought out immediately. He used the words: "Pull it". This remark has been interpreted as slang for demolishing the building. In fact, the collapse was caused by intense fires in one of the neighbouring twin towers that spread to WTC 7, causing its steel beams to buckle and the building to come down."

The hijacked planes were packed with explosives and flown by remote control

Some conspiracy theorists believe the passengers supposedly on board were either killed elsewhere and their bodies dumped at sea, or were part of the conspiracy and are now in hiding with new identities. A key piece of evidence claimed for this theory is that the mobile phone calls the victims are recorded as having made to loved ones from the doomed planes were not possible because of the altitude of the aircraft and therefore faked using "voice morphing technology".

However, phone records show the calls were made from satellite phones fitted to the back of the aircraft seats."

And so on.

[tokeless]

I guess it's a situation of 'And's'... there are so many anomalies, which occured on the same day but are separate events. The two towers, built to withstand several aircraft hitting them. The vertical collapse at free fall speed and not the deterioration you would expect with fires burning over time.. the pancake theory requires pancakes, yet there are none. The explosion of huge steel girders found embedded in buildings quite a distance away.. a fire erodes the material it is burning, so the steel should have just fallen straight down.
Then building 7, which collapsed in total, free fall and yet the fires were on one side and only on a few floors... demolition experts from several countries have seen the footage and all say it's controlled, with no argument between them. They even identify the 'kink' seen when the core is taken out. No steel structure has ever collapsed because of fire.. the Reichstag building burned for three days and still didn't collapse... strange.
Then the Pentagon incident with no fuselage outside of the hole, no sign of titanium engine marks either side of the hole, no tail fin sign above the hole... then the Pennsylvania crash with no debris or bodies found, just grooves in the ground. The exercise the same day, identical scenario, yet no response because the fighter jets were sent from the area for the exercise... so many Ands, yet we are expected to accept nothing to see here...Didn't Sherlock Holmes say once you exclude the impossible, what is left, however improbable must be the truth?