As an engineer, I tell you the controlled demolition thing is much more plausible than the theories brought by the official reports. There is footage of incandescent molten steel being spewed from windows. That alone cannot be explained by a fire originated from the combustion of the plane fuel, because of the fusion point of the steal. Besides this, the way the three buildings collapsed, one of them not even being hit by a plane, looks exactly like a controlled demolition (coordinated sequential explosions, symmetrical collapse centered over the base of the building, near free fall acceleration etc.). Note that the only three high-rise buildings in history said to have collapsed by a fire are the buildings collapsed in the 911.
We also can’t simply tell that the dozens of engineers and architects from https://www.ae911truth.org/ are all pseudoscience crackpots. There are two other sites analogous to this, one by firefighters and other by pilots. And then there is the research of Niels Harrit.
It’s hard to explain how they would have mannaged to secretly put the charges in the buildings. But the fact is the evidence for controlled demolition does exist.
About hollogram planes: this is not needed in the controlled demolition explanation. The planes could have hit the towers as part of the false flag, and then after some time they would initiate the controlled demolition.
Did you know Michael Jackson was supposed to be in the WTC durring the 911? He had a scheduled meeting there, but he missed it because he overslept. While this might be a mere coincidence, what if they arranged Michael Jackson to be there just to make the “attack” cause more public commotion? (This part is just speculation, of course).
As an engineer maybe you should take some social sciences classes that focus on research methods before running your mouth and directing people to nonsense generators who only seek to distort the truth, peddle nonsense and steal money from the vulnerable.
Seriously, if your litmus for this shit is just ‘some grifter told me in a documentry’ and you didnt bother to even fact check such a blatantly false claim you should really reconsider the foundations of what you’re engaging in.
I didn’t know about this one. But this is a very old building and much smaller than the three WTC towers; it’s very understandable that this compromised building fell in the described way. You just adressed one point and proceeded to tell I’m just believing some nonsense. If you read better what I said, you will note I didn’t even say I believe it was a controlled demolition. I said it is much more likely than the official explanations.
My advice to you is to just use your own eyes and brain, dont take anything anyone is saying as ‘more plausable’, start at the most basic assumptions and consider history; do some materialism here. Someone makes a claim, do your own research, seriously challenge the claim for yourself; if it holds up, it is good.
Do not make appeals to authority, plenty of people use degrees in one subject then grift the academic credentials they have to spin nonsense to the guilable, unless its peer reviewed and reproduced by a lot of different people its without merit; even then it would need to be pretty compelling to outright beat a simple historical analysis of what the US has done to the middle east prior to 9/11 and video footage captured of the event.
The issue with conspiracy theories, and why im not going to spend time debunking every question you threw at me is the Brandolini’s law; it takes 10x’s the amount of energy to debunk unevidenced claims than it does to make them; the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence for your claims, not for me to debunk them.
My take on the towers has been outlined in the thread, I guarentee you its closer to base reality than anything post on the pro-truther side of this.
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
debunk unevidenced claims
Are you assuming the points are “unevidenced” without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I’m citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).
I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it’s harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.
It’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).
There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn’t see which was his position, and I don’t have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was “What you really do”, and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it’s at least interesting.
Do not make appeals to authority
When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
its peer reviewed by fellow peers, that is to say, its reviewed by people who already agree with the initial conclusion, this is bias.
they do not use a null hypothesis, this is basic scientific investigation and without one its complete garbage. A null hypothesis is basically asking ‘is this studies initial observation even correct or could it be other things’, without even considering this its bad science as you dont account for the bias of the researcher, which is basic research methods
the study doesnt even definatively say anything, just that it might have been thermite but they dont actually know, you can try and hide this behind academic language but nothing in that paper is definitive.
t’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).
Again none of these peoples opinons actually mean anything, I could make up anything I want about it, there is still video evidence of the planes flying into the towers and video evidence of the burn that happened for hours afterwards, as i’ve demonstrated previously there IS examples of steel buildings falling over as a result of uncontrolled burns.
When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.
I dont need to trust government reports or bunk studies by grifters trying to capitalize on a tragedy, I can see it with my own eyes.
Hey just out of curiosity what field of engineering are you, I am only asking because “engineer” can refer to alot of feilds with almost no overlap within them. For example I have an uncle who is a plastics engineer, and can tell you anything about the plastics he worked on and most anything about the rest, however if I ask him about road design, or stop and go light timeing, he is near clueless, same with electricity ect ect. So I ask because the Field of engineering is important for your area of credibility to be established.
Second as you mentioned the high rises that have collapsed due to fire, we are starting to get into the periphery of what I know though agian I stress this is only the perefery, however highrises tend to not burn down due to how they have to be constructed, that being in a manner that is highly fire resistant so that the occupants could suvive a typical fire. I would like to note however that this is not a typical fire, we also have an aircraft that barreled in causeing an added impact force, and took out both some fire breaks and extra suport, so this is not within the staandard code developments, nor would I say it collapsed due to fire. Second as someone has pointed out, Highrises HAVE collapsed due to a fire, agian they are not often, but it does happen, do you know how distructive fire even is?
Yes I can say that all the Engineers on that CONSPERCY THEORY website are incorrect. I would not say they are crackpots, but I would say that they are wrong. There are psychological elements on why its easy to fall into beliveing and arguing for that, assuming that website is in good faith, as for the websites for pilots and firefighters, same, well except for the pilots I really hope they are not crashing into high rises. I can discuss my knoledge of Cons and why people fall for them with you, and I use Con in the most braud sense of the word. I would also like to point out numbers … you bring up “Dozens” There is a scientific paper with I think about 100 maybe 1000 scientists, many of who are climate scientists saying that climate change is not real, and if it was it would be a bennifit to society, I am sure I could find a few dozen bilogists who assert evolution is wrong, HECK I know of a few dozon mathimiticans who think the consept of infinity is wrong. What I am saying is that dozens is a really small number when we are talking about a feild as big as ALL ENGINEERS (and architects as far as I care to disern is a type of engineer), that is hardly an argument.
Harrit is a quack, first off his argument for why this is not the airplanes is that thermite was present, thermite is Iron Rust, and Aluminum, I would not be surpised if both of those where there, not as thermite but existing, in a building made of steal, in a rapid oxidation (Fire) and with an airplane that is made in whole or part with Aluminum, just to think of sources off my head. Also Thermite creates fire the same thing you said could not cause a collapse. Second the Journal that it was published in had to retract that article due to failing proper peer review, and third over 20,000 engineers and architects signed there name to a counter article refuting that claim (you may note tens of thousands is far greater than dozens). This being to say I do not find his paper to be any sort of relyable, especialy when his “smoking gun” would be expected.
You mention that it would be hard to put a controled demolition up, and this is correct, its kind of hard to get thousands of people to all willingly go to there death, without anyone having any sort of log or having told someone before the event “Yeah honey, I am not going to work tomorrow, they where putting in explosives and I am not sure I trust that.” Also you mentioned much more plausable this way… agian … Aircraft have LOTS of energy both as chemical and Kennetic, and you are saying that the energy stored in a flying aircraft taking down a building is less likely than thousands of randos not spilling the beans?
Your the only one mentioning holographic planes, we all know there where no holographic planes
Also yes it was a coincidence, you know how many people where suposed to go there and did not, or get on a plane that went down, this is called survivors bias, we expect this, especialy given how high profile those towers where.
TL;DR, Learn Critical Thinking and please use that skill
As an engineer, I tell you the controlled demolition thing is much more plausible than the theories brought by the official reports. There is footage of incandescent molten steel being spewed from windows. That alone cannot be explained by a fire originated from the combustion of the plane fuel, because of the fusion point of the steal. Besides this, the way the three buildings collapsed, one of them not even being hit by a plane, looks exactly like a controlled demolition (coordinated sequential explosions, symmetrical collapse centered over the base of the building, near free fall acceleration etc.). Note that the only three high-rise buildings in history said to have collapsed by a fire are the buildings collapsed in the 911.
We also can’t simply tell that the dozens of engineers and architects from https://www.ae911truth.org/ are all pseudoscience crackpots. There are two other sites analogous to this, one by firefighters and other by pilots. And then there is the research of Niels Harrit.
It’s hard to explain how they would have mannaged to secretly put the charges in the buildings. But the fact is the evidence for controlled demolition does exist.
About hollogram planes: this is not needed in the controlled demolition explanation. The planes could have hit the towers as part of the false flag, and then after some time they would initiate the controlled demolition.
Did you know Michael Jackson was supposed to be in the WTC durring the 911? He had a scheduled meeting there, but he missed it because he overslept. While this might be a mere coincidence, what if they arranged Michael Jackson to be there just to make the “attack” cause more public commotion? (This part is just speculation, of course).
A nice docummentary on the subject: 9/11 - Decade of Deception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edifício_Wilton_Paes_de_Almeida
Debunked, this one collapsed.
As an engineer maybe you should take some social sciences classes that focus on research methods before running your mouth and directing people to nonsense generators who only seek to distort the truth, peddle nonsense and steal money from the vulnerable.
Seriously, if your litmus for this shit is just ‘some grifter told me in a documentry’ and you didnt bother to even fact check such a blatantly false claim you should really reconsider the foundations of what you’re engaging in.
I didn’t know about this one. But this is a very old building and much smaller than the three WTC towers; it’s very understandable that this compromised building fell in the described way. You just adressed one point and proceeded to tell I’m just believing some nonsense. If you read better what I said, you will note I didn’t even say I believe it was a controlled demolition. I said it is much more likely than the official explanations.
My advice to you is to just use your own eyes and brain, dont take anything anyone is saying as ‘more plausable’, start at the most basic assumptions and consider history; do some materialism here. Someone makes a claim, do your own research, seriously challenge the claim for yourself; if it holds up, it is good.
Do not make appeals to authority, plenty of people use degrees in one subject then grift the academic credentials they have to spin nonsense to the guilable, unless its peer reviewed and reproduced by a lot of different people its without merit; even then it would need to be pretty compelling to outright beat a simple historical analysis of what the US has done to the middle east prior to 9/11 and video footage captured of the event.
The issue with conspiracy theories, and why im not going to spend time debunking every question you threw at me is the Brandolini’s law; it takes 10x’s the amount of energy to debunk unevidenced claims than it does to make them; the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence for your claims, not for me to debunk them.
My take on the towers has been outlined in the thread, I guarentee you its closer to base reality than anything post on the pro-truther side of this.
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
Are you assuming the points are “unevidenced” without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I’m citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).
I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it’s harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.
It’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).
There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn’t see which was his position, and I don’t have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was “What you really do”, and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it’s at least interesting.
When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.
The appeal to authority is you saying that you’re an engineer, implying that you know better and that non-engineers don’t have a say.
its peer reviewed by fellow peers, that is to say, its reviewed by people who already agree with the initial conclusion, this is bias.
they do not use a null hypothesis, this is basic scientific investigation and without one its complete garbage. A null hypothesis is basically asking ‘is this studies initial observation even correct or could it be other things’, without even considering this its bad science as you dont account for the bias of the researcher, which is basic research methods
the study doesnt even definatively say anything, just that it might have been thermite but they dont actually know, you can try and hide this behind academic language but nothing in that paper is definitive.
Again none of these peoples opinons actually mean anything, I could make up anything I want about it, there is still video evidence of the planes flying into the towers and video evidence of the burn that happened for hours afterwards, as i’ve demonstrated previously there IS examples of steel buildings falling over as a result of uncontrolled burns.
I dont need to trust government reports or bunk studies by grifters trying to capitalize on a tragedy, I can see it with my own eyes.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Hey just out of curiosity what field of engineering are you, I am only asking because “engineer” can refer to alot of feilds with almost no overlap within them. For example I have an uncle who is a plastics engineer, and can tell you anything about the plastics he worked on and most anything about the rest, however if I ask him about road design, or stop and go light timeing, he is near clueless, same with electricity ect ect. So I ask because the Field of engineering is important for your area of credibility to be established.
Second as you mentioned the high rises that have collapsed due to fire, we are starting to get into the periphery of what I know though agian I stress this is only the perefery, however highrises tend to not burn down due to how they have to be constructed, that being in a manner that is highly fire resistant so that the occupants could suvive a typical fire. I would like to note however that this is not a typical fire, we also have an aircraft that barreled in causeing an added impact force, and took out both some fire breaks and extra suport, so this is not within the staandard code developments, nor would I say it collapsed due to fire. Second as someone has pointed out, Highrises HAVE collapsed due to a fire, agian they are not often, but it does happen, do you know how distructive fire even is?
Yes I can say that all the Engineers on that CONSPERCY THEORY website are incorrect. I would not say they are crackpots, but I would say that they are wrong. There are psychological elements on why its easy to fall into beliveing and arguing for that, assuming that website is in good faith, as for the websites for pilots and firefighters, same, well except for the pilots I really hope they are not crashing into high rises. I can discuss my knoledge of Cons and why people fall for them with you, and I use Con in the most braud sense of the word. I would also like to point out numbers … you bring up “Dozens” There is a scientific paper with I think about 100 maybe 1000 scientists, many of who are climate scientists saying that climate change is not real, and if it was it would be a bennifit to society, I am sure I could find a few dozen bilogists who assert evolution is wrong, HECK I know of a few dozon mathimiticans who think the consept of infinity is wrong. What I am saying is that dozens is a really small number when we are talking about a feild as big as ALL ENGINEERS (and architects as far as I care to disern is a type of engineer), that is hardly an argument.
Harrit is a quack, first off his argument for why this is not the airplanes is that thermite was present, thermite is Iron Rust, and Aluminum, I would not be surpised if both of those where there, not as thermite but existing, in a building made of steal, in a rapid oxidation (Fire) and with an airplane that is made in whole or part with Aluminum, just to think of sources off my head. Also Thermite creates fire the same thing you said could not cause a collapse. Second the Journal that it was published in had to retract that article due to failing proper peer review, and third over 20,000 engineers and architects signed there name to a counter article refuting that claim (you may note tens of thousands is far greater than dozens). This being to say I do not find his paper to be any sort of relyable, especialy when his “smoking gun” would be expected.
You mention that it would be hard to put a controled demolition up, and this is correct, its kind of hard to get thousands of people to all willingly go to there death, without anyone having any sort of log or having told someone before the event “Yeah honey, I am not going to work tomorrow, they where putting in explosives and I am not sure I trust that.” Also you mentioned much more plausable this way… agian … Aircraft have LOTS of energy both as chemical and Kennetic, and you are saying that the energy stored in a flying aircraft taking down a building is less likely than thousands of randos not spilling the beans?
Your the only one mentioning holographic planes, we all know there where no holographic planes
Also yes it was a coincidence, you know how many people where suposed to go there and did not, or get on a plane that went down, this is called survivors bias, we expect this, especialy given how high profile those towers where.
TL;DR, Learn Critical Thinking and please use that skill
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: