Are you ceazy?
Even for you that is outrageous nonsense.
Steve, I am as weary of conspiracy theories as you, but I have read a couple of years ago a study by - I believe - an association of American engineers, which raised some interesting questions about the way the Towers collapsed. If I remember well, they didn't think it could happen as the simple result of the collision by the aircraft and the ensuing fires. And certainly not in that perfectly vertical collapsing movement we all saw. If there were other agents at play, who could they have been? Is that enough to suspect Americans from being behind 9/11? Maybe not, but one thing I am sure of: 9/11 was damned convenient to justify another American war in the ME. Just like Pearl Harbour was damned convenient to convince the American people to enter the war. There are very dark forces at play in the US - which have nothing to do with the common American - capable of doing the most unspeakable things. For some people, sacrificing 3,000 American lives to allow the US to pursue its aggressive policies in the ME was perfectly acceptable. Collateral damage may have many different meanings for very different people...SteveFoerster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:56 pm
Please read my answer to Steve. No, I am not crazy. And neither am I stupid...
If you had read the text in question you might think otherwise. Those people were not crackpots. I no longer have the reference to that text, but I will try and look it up for you.neverfail wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:05 am
I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the
US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular,
the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or
since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based
mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and
symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. The “explosive
demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore
is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses,
including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and
constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion.
Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and
destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed
– and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the
explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for
accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from
compelling. It just does not add up.
And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004). Clearly, we
must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did.
To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of
video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST,
2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not
molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought
forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore,
along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a
cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition
hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.
We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that
the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives [3, 22, 27]. Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST
investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” .
We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.
You project so much you ought to open a cinema. You're the one willing to believe anything that paints the U.S. in a bad light, even if it means stooping to 9/11 conspiracy theories.Sertorio wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:10 am
The authors of those texts seem credible enough, even if they may be wrong. Why can't you keep your mind open to alternatives?SteveFoerster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:43 pmYou project so much you ought to open a cinema. You're the one willing to believe anything that paints the U.S. in a bad light, even if it means stooping to 9/11 conspiracy theories.Sertorio wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:10 amEven for your standards that is very pitiful indeed. Did you read the texts I posted? I'm sure you didn't, as you knew beforehand that they contradicted your biased views...SteveFoerster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:02 am