I think people are falling for it

Adder wrote: Ms Adder was uncomfortable for months afterwards working in a tall building, but the main reason most people didn't question is was probably;
1. things are built as cheap as possible to do the expected job - to maximize profits
2. skyscrapers are not designed to withstand passenger jet aircraft flying into them
1+2=
yea, that makes sense. :lol:

On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell Bomber, lost in the fog, crashed into the Empire State Building. WTC Lead Structural Engineer Leslie Robertson took this into factor and designed the original twin towers to be able to resist the impact of a 707 (the largest commercial plane in service at that time). Therefore point #2 is incorrect.

As a Aerospace Engineer, I have worked around many of the airplanes that are similar to the 757 and I can tell you with complete authority that the damage at the Pentagon could not have been created by a 757 traveling at the trajectory claimed by the 911 Commission Report. I will not go into who did it or why, because we will never really know the truth, but for a 757 fuselage to strike the building at the location in all of the photographs, the engines would have drug the ground, and there is no evidence in the photos of scarring on the ground. I'm not even sure if it could have flown at that low of an altitude at that speed because of down-draft.

Rick D wrote: Therefore point #2 is incorrect.

See point 1 :pinch: :lol:

Rick D wrote: I'm not even sure if it could have flown at that low of an altitude at that speed because of down-draft.

What do you mean by down draft? Do you mean wind shear?

Edit; my memory of the weather that day would not have been conducive to wind shear, did KDCA mention the risk in its METAR?

I cannot comment on the other aspects, as it depends stuff I don't know... such as the altitude, pitch, roll and speed when it hit the structure.

PS: I accidentally edited your post Rick D, but I think I caught it before any changes occurred!?

What about WTC 7? It was never hit by a plane and pancaked as well.

CryojenX wrote: What about WTC 7? It was never hit by a plane and pancaked as well.

There seems to be plenty of stuff online for both sides of the argument. There is nothing to be gained for me to spend any measure of time trying to weigh up the information. My interest only really extends over the aviation side of things.

It's just I've not seen anything to convince me it was anything other then AQ, remembering of course people who had trained with AQ had previously tried to the do the same thing in 1993 using a truck underneath the building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

While not directly linked, those folks trained at an AQ camp, and since OBL's family are billionaires in the construction industry it makes sense he'd focus on that as a symbol of the West. Not only would have be familiar with engineering even if he didn't enjoy and study it, but it achieves a few goals at once such as mass casualty, symbolic/dramatic, high chance for secondary effects in the densely populated area and tertiary effects in financial markets and of course dragging the West into conflict which itself serves AQ's cause.

I'm not saying it was not some governmental or industrial sabotage of the system, but I'm not convinced in the stuff I've seen :side:

CryojenX wrote: I don't dismiss conspiracy theorists outright, there's always a lot of shady stuff going on, in fact I've been attacked for being a 9/11 "truther" (how wanting to seek out the truth became a bad thing is beyond me), I just understand from my own experience that one needs to be careful how deep one peers into the rabbit-hole before one falls in. 9/11 traumatized me to a degree where I spent over a decade an absolute wreck of anxiety and fear of my own government. Even now that I have overcome the obsession of digging through information (and misinformation) trying desperately to learn a whole picture of "the truth", I still have bouts of anxiety. Meditation and focus on the grander scale of life over the millennia and eons before and after human existence have helped me to gain some perspective, and calm those inner obsessions.

I don't want any single person on this planet to have to suffer, and knowing that it happens at the hands of manipulators who use entire nations like chess pieces is hard enough, but then you add misinformation campaigns into the mix and it becomes nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction. So instead I tend to focus on truth, and the truth is that there have always been places and times where sinister schemes were carried out by people with power, and there likely always will be. And if it ever seems like "they" are winning (again falling into us vs. them thinking) it's only a swing of the pendulum; it always swings back around. When people do "evil" things (so to speak), it is because they are ignorant of their own true nature, and there will always be ignorance.

The thing is it always bothers me whenever I try asking questions. Whenever someone questions the official story, you see the media and the people have this "How dare you question your government?" mentality? I thought it was good to ask questions but apparently now that seems to be looked down upon. And really world domination isn't really much of a stretch considering almost every major empire in history has attempted to do that in the past. And also it's rather practical to fabricate some things. I mean that's old trick civilizations used before. You create a problem, than you step up with a "solution" to the problem you created and so people will look toward you and do pretty much anything to have this solution, even if it means giving up your freedoms.

People will wonder why haven't they forced everyone in submission, but the thing is force really isn't that effective. For one thing, there's way more civilians than military folk and when you use force, the people fight back and eventually take back what was stolen from them. But tricking the people into being disarmed and giving up their freedoms is more effective and practical even if it takes longer. Freedoms can never be taken away unless the people willingly give them away. And as for information, that's a strategy they like to use is to overload the people with so much information and sometime put out half truths out there so people won't know what's true or false though.

Yabuturtle wrote:
The thing is it always bothers me whenever I try asking questions. Whenever someone questions the official story, you see the media and the people have this "How dare you question your government?" mentality? I thought it was good to ask questions but apparently now that seems to be looked down upon.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Personally, given what we've seen since the turn of the century, I am disturbed more by people who dare not question their leadership more than I am by those who do question.

I wasn't always like this, but can remember exactly what triggered the shift. In the months following 9/11, Colin Powell presented a well-known speech to the United Nations, presenting the U.S. administration's evidence that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Not long thereafter, an article from The Guardian , the respected news outlet from the U.K., fell into my hands. It heavily quoted a Cambridge professor who thought he recognized the text from which Powell was reading, and so started delving into his archives. He found the original document; it was the thesis of a graduate student focused on the situation in Iraq, written in 1991 - ten years earlier, when Bush the senior was preparing for Desert Storm. When the professor compared the thesis to the text of Powell's speech, he found even the misspellings and grammatical errors were the same. Powell has asserted that the document he was reading was current intelligence.

That's when I knew things were not as they were being communicated to us. I see an awful lot from the conspiracy-theory community which strikes me as either unsupported or, sometimes, outright lunacy, but those we chide as part of the tin-hat crowd at least have their instincts well-tuned to the idea we are often being fooled.

I encourage you to keep asking questions. Lots of people won't pay attention, but some will. Of those, some will oppose your point of view, and - when they are civil and thoughtful - it pays to consider what they say, as none of us is always right. The majority consensus, though, at least in this period, is IMHO most often wrong.

I just think it's unfair to say that all conspiracy theorists are nuts and are doing this for no reason other than for attention or that because one believes in some conspiracy theories, that must mean they believe in all conspiracy theories. Now I think there are a few here and there that are totally made up but there is most definitely truth in some of them. Some I know have different ideas on what would happen. If anyone recalls many different prophecies in ancient times they speak of things, such as families breaking apart, people becoming less spiritual and religious and the Earth will be messed up. Some say it's all fake but look at what's happening. There are people abandoning more of their faith, children aren't listening to their parents and our planet is being messed up with pollution.

Speaking of faiths some have even said that some corrupt governments will go after every religious and spiritual group. Including the Jedi here. And if you think about it, the idea isn't impossible and kind of makes sense. The Communists of Russia and China, Cambodia ect. did that as well, destroying temples and churches and suppressing religion. They said it was because religion is an outdated idea, but really the real reason why they put so much effort into it is because if they stop religions and suppress their faith, people won't be loyal to their creed and faith and will instead be loyal to their government. I see some of it is also happening with countries that are becoming more socialistic like America since America is losing it's faith and it's developing more and more socialistic methods, such as with welfare, centralized banking systems, centralized healthcare being forced upon others. And people still insist that such a thing can't happen? Why is that? Do they really think America is immune to corruption, especially when other countries have had their tyrannical moments. Why would one or two countries be the exception?

It just makes me think that some are just in denial and would rather believe in lies and believe their government always knows best, even if they live in a corrupt system.

Omhu Cuspor wrote:

Yabuturtle wrote:
The thing is it always bothers me whenever I try asking questions. Whenever someone questions the official story, you see the media and the people have this "How dare you question your government?" mentality? I thought it was good to ask questions but apparently now that seems to be looked down upon.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Personally, given what we've seen since the turn of the century, I am disturbed more by people who dare not question their leadership more than I am by those who do question.

I've always been the type to question so-called authority, ever since I was a child, I've just had to learn to not constantly burden myself with it, for my own emotional and physical health.

CryojenX wrote: I've always been the type to question so-called authority, ever since I was a child, I've just had to learn to not constantly burden myself with it, for my own emotional and physical health.

I am right with you there. I'm finding that balancing staying apprised of current affairs and doing what I can about them with my own emotional stability is more art than science, but is essential. We become both ineffective and depleted if the world's woes overwhelm us, which happens easily - especially for those who are most sensitive.

we all have to come to terms withthe realty of tragedy ans suffering

thats really what it comes down to and it may sound cold but it is inescapable

life includes great suffering and much tragedy, and theres no getting around it

then the question becomes "whats the "best" way to respond to that fact?"

its a good question!