Our engineering schools cannot solve 9/11. Only a legitimate forensic scientific criminal investigation has a chance to solve 9/11. A solution first begins with a legitimate explanation for the most likely causes of the events. That should lead to the next step, who are the most likely suspects that could have caused it. A lot of the physical evidence has been deliberately destroyed or otherwise corrupted. A lot of the remaining evidence/documents have been illegitimately classified and inaccessible even via FOIA, under pretext of national security. Some of the initial set of suspects that require investigating are those responsible for the coverup. The only reason to coverup any crime is to protect the criminals, so that trail is an absolute requirement to follow. There is also whatever remains of the physical evidence. That must be forensically/chemically analyzed for anything relevant and/or unusual. So I fail to see the reasoning behind the importance of engineering schools that bear no responsibility versus those who actively planned and/or conducted the 9/11 operation who are 100% responsible. Unless you're more interested in the science of 9/11 than the crime itself. But even then I fail to understand your point because a legitimate investigation absolutely requires science. As to engineering schools, there is at least one university currently investigating one aspect of 9/11, the destruction of WTC7. I don't know of any updates or if the investigation is ongoing but they've already forensically concluded that NIST's theory is impossible and its investigation (if one can call it that) unprofessionally conducted. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
I have yet to see irrevocable evidence to counter the official conclusion but I am open minded to those who believe that they can present irrevocable evidence that counters the government conclusion.
Well, a few years ago there was a a fuel tanker that crashed and burned under a steel and concrete freeway overpass... it collapsed. Of course that might just be part of the enormous conspiracy
You can't see anything if you don't look. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
Are you implying that I have not previously looked at info on the subject? Instead of throwing a bunch of links at me, make a specific claim and supply a link to the supporting evidence.
Depending on what you mean by "info on the subject", I would rather call it an educated guess in this case. You quoted the links I provided well before you had a chance to review their contents. And by your own admission (see below), you obviously haven't bothered. That's what I mean, I did and you quoted the links. Those threads are chock full of supporting evidence, mostly referencing the official claims and conclusions. Most of the evidence is irrefutable. For example, post #195 in this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-all-its-glory.495859/page-10#post-1067421717 There are many more examples though. I'm not here to try to convince you of anything, it's up to you to actually research the evidence. I posted quite a bit of it for the convenience of anyone who genuinely wants to know. If you don't want to know, don't bother of course. It sure sounds to me like you've already convinced yourself despite the contradictory evidence that I doubt you've researched or if you did, you likely rejected it out of hand.
The problem is how ridiculous it is to believe that a 150 ton airliner could totally destroy a 400,000 ton 1360 foot building in less than two hours. The nation that put men on the Moon is full of people that can't solve a problem that middle school children should have figured out in 2002. This speaks volumes about how bad science education is in this country. WTC7 isn't even interesting. A simulation of the north tower that removed levels 91 to 95 and allowed the top 15 stories to fall on the bottom 90 should show how impossible the collapse would be. But what engineering school has suggested a simulation that simple. That is not the only example of miseducational ignorance in this country. Double-entry accounting was 400 years old when Adam Smith was born and 500 years old when Karl Marx was born. But with decades of blather about economics our schools can't recommend mandatory accounting for everyone. Ridiculous! The system depends on controlled ignorance. psik
Give me a break. If you still think we put men on the moon, you're hardly worth talking to. The proof that it was faked has been on the internet for years. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-moon-missions-were-faked-in-a-studio.347662/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-backdrops-to-a-movie-set-mod-warning.403884/ Come over to the moon landing section and we can talk about it. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/moon-landing.72/ The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is just as crushing. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially the bolded but I also disagree with some of what you're saying, especially the underlined and the logic behind your belief as to "Why our engineering schools do not solve it is more important than who did it". I'll leave the putting men on the moon out of the discussion since I also have some reservations about that and that discussion is way off topic anyway.
Precisely! On that we agree. Just a few of the known facts are that there was no airliner in the field in Pennsylvania, as told by the county coroner as he exited the field. Another is that there was no airliner that struck the pentagon building. Another is that the towers came down at rates pretty close to free fall, and that some structural debris was blown outwards hundreds of feet. Those and other facts make the official explanation impossible.
The cores of the Twin Towers were designed with a 1959 IBM computer. https://memim.com/ibm-1620.html When people question the Moon landing I like to ask them to explain how a transistor works. What is a P-N junction? So you do not find it really peculiar that engineering schools could not analyze the supposed collapses with year 2000 computers? What would have happened if 70% of engineers and physicists had publicly said that the collapses were impossible in 2002? psik
Ouch, that never even occurred to me. Thanks for that info. Being in the business for over 40 years I know how primitive that piece of hardware was even in comparison to the first computer I ever programmed, the IBM 360/30. Well I'll leave that out of the 9/11 discussion. I never said it wasn't peculiar, I just questioned your order of importance. IMO, that should be a term project for most engineering schools today because of its notoriety. So I can't say I disagree with you on that basis. I personally would have been shocked that they would have done that after discovering that to be true. In any case I seriously doubt that enough engineers and physicists would have even embarked on that kind of research so soon after 9/11. Perhaps 3 to 5 years later but you see that didn't happen. And Gage and his peers didn't even start looking into it until sometime around 2005 and AE911 wasn't formed until 2006. But even so they don't comprise anywhere near 70% of engineers and physicists.
I drove into Chicago to attend one of Richard Gage's dog and pony shows in May of 2008. I got in line after the show to ask him about the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings. First he looked at me like I had grown a second head and I wondered what his problem was. Then he said the the NIST falsified the blue prints of the towers. Didn't the steel on the first level of the WTC have to support the weight of all of the steel and concrete of the upper 109 levels? Didn't the steel on the second level have to support the weight of 108 levels? So didn't designing the building require knowing the weight of steel and concrete on each and every one of 110 levels of the towers? So why isn't this an obvious question to every engineer, physicist and architect? Where has AE911Truth discussed it? psik
In a sense we are dealing with a problem of epistemology compounded by semantics. Believing, suspecting and knowing are three different things. It is very often difficult to KNOW something, and at best we can only suspect. But most people rarely use the word suspect. They usually either say know or BELIEVE. But if you look up the definition of believe it is kind of stupid so I made up my own: to accept something as true or false without sufficient evidence Therefore believing is stupid by definition. I suspect that an airliner could not have destroyed one of the towers even more strongly than I suspect the Moon landing actually occurred. psik
I know you're not too thrilled with Gage based on the history of your posts. But for me this guy in particular (and many others) is instrumental in exposing the official 9/11 scam. I wonder where many of us would be if he never did what he did and especially organize a large professional group of 9/11 activists. The exact details contradicting the official theory are not as important to me as the fact that it is an fabricated scam that absolutely needs to be exposed as such. So whatever personal agenda or issues Gage may have is inconsequential in the much larger picture.
In one of your links you claimed that MSN is a puppet. What source citation do you have to back that claim? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/
That would be MSM (Main Stream Media). It's an opinion based on the fact that (in the case of 9/11) most MSM outlets continue to parrot the official conspiracy theory and rarely ever publish any facts that contradict it despite that there is an incredible amount of expert research on the subject. The only time any of these MSM outlets ever publish anything contradictory is when they ridicule such research, often employing standard terms such as "conspiracy theory(ist)" or "truther" meant to try to silence anyone who questions the official narrative. These very same outlets were/are also cheerleaders for the fake war on terror and often do their best to try to marginalize anyone running for office who doesn't kowtow to the establishment. I must say though I was pleasantly surprised when CNN interviewed Richard Gage and when PBS ran AE911's documentary "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" each day for about 3 days. If I remember correctly, it was the most viewed documentary on PBS ever.
My apologies, I misread that but the claim against the MSM does not change my inquiry much. Opinion is not synonymous with fact. If it is a fact then why call it an opinion? If it is a fact then please provide objective source citation that irrefutably proves that the MSM is a puppet. If all you have is opinion then there is no use in responding as I am focused upon fact, not subjective opinion.
World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision and the Problem of Variable-Mass in Physics. | Alberto Miatello - Academia.edu This guy says analyseing the collapse is rocket science. LOL It is so nice to have someone explain the intuitively obvious with mathematical rigor. It does make one wonder why every engineering school hasn't done this long before 2015. psik
No problem. No one ever said it is. Based on supporting fact is not the same as fact. I think you're confused about my opinion (which is shared by many BTW) vs the basis for my opinion. I called it the puppet MSM for the reasons/facts stated. If you're asking me to provide MSM articles that parrot the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, they are quite easy to find. If you're asking me to provide MSM articles that contradict the official conspiracy theory, they are extremely difficult to find if they exist at all. I can't remember actually coming across one. It's not irrefutable supporting evidence that the MSM is a puppet of the US government with respect to 9/11 but it is certainly supportive of my personal opinion. You referenced the thread on the 9/11 Commission and their report. Most MSM articles use the 9/11 Commission Report in support of official 9/11 claims. Very few if any ever claim the 9/11 Commission got it wrong. That's your call of course. I too am focused on fact but that doesn't mean I have no personal opinion or that my opinions are not based on facts. That's true of everyone, including you, whether you choose to admit it or not.
So the more people who believe a thing to be true the more true the thing objectively is? FYI peer pressure arguments are whasted upon me as to me it says that one has nothing of substance to argue thus the falling back upon peer pressure. Yet you have stated no fact that proves that MSM is a puppet. Facts can be backed by objective source citation, so please link me to your source citation that proves for a fact that the MSM is a puppet. I am simply asking you to prove for a fact that the MSM is a puppet. You made the claim, now back it up with objective source citation! I am not looking for opinion based upon fact, I am looking for fact as opinion is subjective while facts are objective. Just because one has an opinion based upon a fact does not mean that their opinion is factually correct. If your conclusion on the MSM is just your opinion then we may as well stop our discussion as I prefer fact over opinion. Fact "a thing that is indisputably the case." - Google Opinion "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." - Google
If that were true the earth would have been flat in the 13th century, right? That wasn't my point obviously. It wasn't my intent to prove anything to you. The facts are what they are, what you do with them is your personal issue. If you can't see the forest for the trees, that's your problem. See above. You can keep asking all you want (see above). I stated an opinion supported by fact as already stated quite explicitly. Again, see above. As already stated it isn't just my opinion, it is shared by many but you tried to morph that point into something I never said, claimed or meant (see first sentence). In any case this discussion is not going anywhere anyway. Again, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else about anything. I'm here to share information about 9/11 (in this section of the forum) and discuss it (not debate it). There are always going to be diverse opinions on the subject, based on or regardless of the facts. I'm interested in a discussion about 9/11 not insulting grade school dictionary definitions. Take that crap somewhere else, this thread is called "Did You Change Your Mind About 9/11? When? Why?". I'd rather get back to the topic of this thread if you don't mind or even if you do. If you have nothing to contribute to this particular discussion, there's no reason for you to post here. You originally referenced a post in another thread, that discussion belongs in that thread, not here. So did you change your mind about 9/11? When? Why?
