Having read only your last 3 posts, I am curious if you believe that the damage observed at WTC is consistent with the officially named cause, aircraft damage and office fires? As a layman, I understand many things were misrepresented at WTC, and would not be surprised in the least if the core design was also misrepresented. Some say the original blueprints could never be found.
Sorry but it's all still just your opinion. When and and if a legitimate investigation is ever conducted, you are free to present whatever "proof" you claim you have.
No, Scott isn't a bot, but I don't think that Scott continually saying "The proof is crushing" and posting a link is going to persuade many people who aren't already on the brink of being persuaded. Youtube videos can show evidence, not just opinions. Conversely, Scott's words could simply be opinion. I think the bottom line here is that you want a short text post from Scott that you can sink your teeth into instead of a link leading to a series of other links. The truth is much too complicated to be so easily revealed, however. That being said, I know that trying to persuade people by providing them with an encyclopedia of knowledge and telling them to just have at it rarely if ever works. Instead, I've found that you've essentially got to portion out the truth bit by bit, like bread crumbs, encouraging your audience to explore ever larger pieces of evidence as you go. Even then, results are far from guaranteed. I've never had any evidence that I've ever persuaded anyone online to change their point of view (I've always found it to be much easier to do with people you already know offline). That being said, I definitely think I've gotten atleast some of them to learn atleast a little regarding what really happened on 9/11.
No way did planes and fire bring down the Twins. NIST, the organization officially charged with an analysis of the structural event DID NOT HAVE PLANS for the towers, http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html Guiliani took them in December of 2001.
Baloney! First, quote where in that link it says that he took blueprints/drawings? Second, why would NIST go to Guiliani for blueprints?!
So you are unable to use evidence and rely on official investigations to know truth? In fact it sound like you do not want to see evidence. Too bad. The 2001 safety report for FEMA by August Domel identifies a concrete core. Domel is certified in 12 states as a structural engineer. See page 5. http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/domel_safety_report.ncsea.down.pdf Then there is the 1992 Oxford Encyclopedia of Innovation and Technology. Is it "ALL" just my opinion now Bob? Imposing "all or nothing thinking" under these conditions will render you unreasonable Bob. Critical thinking cannot be done with cognitive distortions Bob. But maybe you do not want to know the truth. See my sig.
Both were wrong. Have you asked Domel about his explanation? I would suggest doing so. Have you spoken to Robertson about your concrete core? I have via email. He basically says your full of crap. No concrete core.
True it does not say blue prints, but blueprints are the most important part of the "civic center , WTC documents" and it says that. And there were were certainly hundreds of pictures of the concrete core.
Domel states it is a design method. Your words about others are worthless. LOL! Oxford mistaken in their encyclopedia. L O L! Two images of the same massive piece of concrete core wall falling into the core are on 9/11. Stop supporting secret methods of mass murder.
With 15,000 photos and video, it is safe to assume there were pics of the concrete core taken by inspectors. In fact I saw some pics of the concrete core during construction in the 1990 documentary. One I remember clearly showed the 3" rebar inside the concrete forms. Here is the rebar on 9/11.
Actually your failure to post an image of the supposed steel framed core with its steel core columns on 9/11 makes you look far worse than a fool. But it rhymes with fool, ghoul
I don't need to post images of a steel framed core. They're EVERYWHERE. You just claim that they're elevator guide rails, but have no proof. That's your only argument. - - - Updated - - - Those are columns!!! How can you expect something 3" in diameter to show up that big in a photo taken from 7500 feet away!!!
completely debunked ... if you don't think so,post it in my hard evidence thread ... [/QUOTE] and what really happened on 9/11? ....
I certainly don't always agree with Gamolon, but I think he's spot on here. From 9-11 Research: **The core columns were steel box-columns that were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams. Apparently the box columns, more than 1000 feet long, were built as the towers rose by welding together sections several stories tall. The sections were fabricated by mills in Japan that were uniquely equipped to produce the large pieces. 2 Some of the core columns apparently had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches. 3 The core columns were oriented so that their longer dimensions were perpendicular to the core structures' longer, 133-foot-wide sides. Construction photographs found at the Skyscraper Museum in New York City indicate that the outermost rows of core columns on the cores' longer sides were of the larger dimensions. Both the FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study and the NIST's Draft Report on the Twin Towers fail to disclose the dimensions of the core columns, and the NIST Report implies that only the four core columns on each core's corners had larger dimensions. Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick. The top figure in the illustration to the right is a cross-section of one of the smaller core columns from about half-way up a tower, where the steel was about two inches thick. The bottom figure shows the base of one of the larger core columns, where the steel was five inches thick. The bases of the columns also had slabs of steel running through their centers, making them almost solid.** Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
We clearly disagree on that point. May do that later. The evidence of what really happened on 9/11 has filled books- you can't reduce it to a sound bite. Instead, we have to look at the individual pieces, such as the alleged hijackers.
The reason I post this link from time to time is to keep you pro-official version posters from burying it. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060 I've seen that one of the tactics that pro-official version posters use is to bury the info that truthers post to reduce the number of viewers who see it. We have to do a lot of repeat posting to thwart you. The proof that the government did it is so crushing that, once the viewers have seen it, there's really nothing you can do to make them think that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
I completely agree that those who disagree with the official story have to do a lot of repeat posting. This may well be true. I think the main problem is in getting people to actually read and/or view the amount of literature and videos that you'd like them to look at in a single sitting. I think the best solution is to entice them to learn more. Drop little pieces of information, leading them on to more pieces of information, with the hope that eventually they'll get enough of it to change their minds on what happened. I've been successful in this on a small scale, in terms of changing their views on small things, but not on the actual scale of changing their minds on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, atleast not to my knowledge. It's been my experience that these things can take a lot of time.
Never read anything more ridiculous in my life. Of course you have proof. What date did that happen? Have you ever been to the Carlyle Hotel?
There are some short YouTube videos in he link. I guess I should have put them first on the list. Here's the new link. The other one doesn't go to post #2 any more. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060 I have trouble just getting people to watch the videos. I've sent them to several people I know and a lot of them say they haven't had the time to watch them. Years later they still haven't watched them and they still say they think terrorists did it. Some people simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with these topics. I guess that's way there are so many sheeple.
That reminds me of the House Representative who was interviewed by CNN who said he fully supports the 9/11 Commission Report. When asked if he actually read it he said no.
Perhaps if you were to write down your theory and let someone actually read the whole thing in a single sitting….
Several times. If you would like to read about GHW Bush's involvement with the Carlyle Group, simply google it. And yes a couple of Bin Laden's brothers were also involved. The meeting of GHW Bush and Bin Laden's actually took place at the Ritz Carlton Hotel on 9/10/01. The group got its name from the Carlyle Hotel which is where they generally met in New York, but the meeting on 9/10/01 was convened a little farther uptown..
Wrong. This is all myth and urban legend for which you have no evidence and the burden is on you to provide evidence. You do not get to simply say google it. I did google it and you claim is total BS so back it up with evidence or face that you are spreading fiction
