Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

It was sagging, and there was a huge portion of the building scooped out that many people who think it was inside job don't like you seeing. It takes hundreds of man hours and effort to set up a building for a CD, and only a handful of companies in the world that do CD. You are looking at the similarites, but you don't hear the constant explosions or see the bright flashes of light that accompany a CD.

 

You are wasting your breath. You are dealing with people whose minds are made up, and who won't let things like facts or logic stand in the way of a perfectly good fairy tale.

 

Charlie Veitch concenientky changed his mind. Wonder what his twisted mind thinks today?

 

conviniently*

 

Yup he was probably threatend...

 

You can edit posts.


Isn't he allowed to change his mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpQzU74X9rE"]911 Conspiracy Road Trip - BBC 2011 - Part 1-4 (Charlie Veitch) - YouTube


To me it just seemed like he hit an emotional wall. It's all very well arguing the toss on the internet - but when you meet people who's family has died - it all becomes rather self-indulgent, imho.

 

i'll never understand why everyone thinks that was an inside job.it was'nt!

 

You say that with upmost certainty... HOW DO YOU KNOW??

 

simply commonsense.

 

To have objective merit, a claim needs to be supported by various objective pieces of evidence that corroborate, and the argument needs to be falsifiable.

A long list of cut-and-paste statements of "I just can't believe it" is not an argument. It's known as the 'argument' of incredulity where a person is trying to convince others by imposing disbelief onto them. A statement such as "They did it in such a clever way that no one will ever be able to figure out how they did it" is not a falsifiable argument. Neither is "They used secret weapons that left no traces." Still another is "God made the earth a few thousand years ago with all the fossil evidence for evolution inserted into the earth to trick everyone." Those types of statements are for the most part not falsifiable and are statements based mostly on belief. They give some mental comfort to a person by reinforcing personal beliefs, and they may offer some utility for trying to win over the hearts and minds of others. They have personal and propaganda merit but not objective merit.

Theories that lend themselves the most to being falsified are the ones that have the most potential objective merit. Theories that lend themselves the least to being falsified have the least objective merit; they are more like religious or philosophical beliefs.

A theory that has a high degree of merit is one that is highly vulnerable to being falsified but that has yet to be falsified after extensive analysis of many objective measurements performed by independent groups using independent measurement approaches. Special and General Relativity are good examples of such theories. They have yet to be falsified by measurements that span the gamut from the movements of astronomical bodies to the decay times of subatomic particles.

In contrast, String Theory is an example of a theory that has pleasing aspects with respect to potentially explaining particle physics but that at the moment is very difficult to make vulnerable to falsification using objective measurements.

 

Your belief that there is no clever way to do it in such a way that no one will be able to figure it out is based on your assumption that the military industrial complex's policy is one of transparency and that you are privy to all of their advances.

Please don't tell me that you don't understand the law of the conservation of momentum enough to know that buildings don't collapse like that. Here is something concerning that:

http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

 

they do when their bombed

 

Wat a excellent website! I WaNt the non believers to discredit that!

 

It already has about 6 times - have you not been reading your own thread?

 

"It already has about 6 times."

Sounds like you're talking about something called "it", and you're telling us that six times is what "it" possesses.

You know about the edit button, right?

______________________________

Why don't you be a nice guy, Odon, and tell him where he can find at least one example on this thread where the laws of physics were proven to have been overcome by the magic of 9/11.

 

Oopss. I meant 5.

Your premise is that the link is an accuraste reflection of what has been documented in - for e.g - NIST. It isn't.
The question was: 'Wat a excellent website! I WaNt the non believers to discredit that!' (sic).
To discredit it, I don't have to question their physics -I'm sure they are accurate.
What has been shown in this thread - more than once (to be fair) - is that such websites are inaccurate, and perpetuate a straw man argument.
I'm not sure how old your article is - but...

For e.g: 'The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational collapse"; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse"'

...isn't their position now (I'm not sure it even was)...

Where in the NIST report does it say that?

Remembering the final report was published on Oct. 26, 2005.

Is that article THAT old?

NIST's findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC

Shall I try and find where that link has been posted before?

 

Odon, why aren't you showing him an example found in this thread where the laws of physics were proven to have been overcome by the magic of 9/11?

 

Like I said, I don't have to.

 

And there is the discrediting you asked for, jmt. It's the best you're going to get.

 

Q: Other 9/11 sites tend to focus on conservation of momentum, while your article focuses on conservation of energy. Since both are conserved, why do you only consider conservation of energy?
A: Because momentum is only conserved in non-destructive collisions, and one look at the 'collapse' videos makes it obvious that destruction was occurring on a massive scale as the towers were demolished top-to-bottom, making conservation of momentum analyses misleading, at best.

A good reality check avoids unnecessary complications and does not make unnecessary assumptions. By looking at conservation of energy instead of conservation of momentum, no assumptions about the complex mechanics (forces, directions, solidity, deformations, etc.) involved in the 'collapses' are required.

Try finding a website that talks about what you are talking about.