A Reasonable Person Should Have Serious Doubts About 9/11
In almost every aspect of 9/11, there is ample room for suspicion. A prime example is the demolition of the WTC towers. A reasonable person who is not familiar with every detail of the collapses will leave open the possibility that the towers were demolished-- and also the possibility that there was no demolition. At minimum, there is a large amount of uncertainty about whether the official story holds up.
A government shill is someone who has no doubt at all that the official 9/11 story is true and will not allow any contrary idea to this to penetrate their head.
As I've seen in the past, and as I will continue to show here, the 9/11 government shills can be very selective in how they present their "proofs". But the pure proof of their shilliness is their steadfast uncertainty about 9/11.
What I never can fathom is why an ordinary person would give complete credence to the government about something as vital as 9/11-- particularly when there is abundant evidence that ALL government officials (both Democrats and Republicans) lie.
Thus, people who refuse to question the governments' account of 9/11 must be one or more of the following:
1) a partisan shill
2) a paid shill
3) in psychological or physical pain and in deep denial about 9/11
A government shill is someone who has no doubt at all that the official 9/11 story is true and will not allow any contrary idea to this to penetrate their head.
As I've seen in the past, and as I will continue to show here, the 9/11 government shills can be very selective in how they present their "proofs". But the pure proof of their shilliness is their steadfast uncertainty about 9/11.
What I never can fathom is why an ordinary person would give complete credence to the government about something as vital as 9/11-- particularly when there is abundant evidence that ALL government officials (both Democrats and Republicans) lie.
Thus, people who refuse to question the governments' account of 9/11 must be one or more of the following:
1) a partisan shill
2) a paid shill
3) in psychological or physical pain and in deep denial about 9/11
posted by spooked at 11:46 PM
18 Comments:
The structural engineering community is solidly on the side of the "official" verion of events.
Osama has confessed to planning the attacks on several occasions.
A jury has convicted Zacharias Moussaui beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence of the official version.
Osama Bin Laden has been seen on video with the hijackers.
Why is it so unusual that a reasonable person should assume that what happened is exactly what happened?
I mean, it's not like we believe something outrageous like holographic airplanes and that thwe thousands of eyewitnesses at the WTC and pentagon are all paid governemtn operatives based on screenshots some guy playing a video game or blowing up a rabbit cage. =P
A government shill is someone who has no doubt at all that the official 9/11 story is true and will not allow any contrary idea to this to penetrate their head.
i think a govt shill is someone who knows that the official 9/11 story is nothing more than a fairytale but bends over backwards defending it anyway - for whatever reasons.
ms. patriot claims:
The structural engineering community is solidly on the side of the "official" verion of events.
funny how the structural engineering community sees nothing amiss with 110 story steel/concrete towers exploding into powder from the top down thru the path of most resistance in the same length of time it would take a bowling ball dropped from the same height to reach the ground.
i would like to see the structural engineering community actually explain that little phenomenon.
First, I'm a dude, dude. Alberta is a Canadian province. It's a great place to live, but I don't want you visiting here.
Second, yeah... it is funny how the people who actually have university degrees in what makes buildings stay up or fall down don't have any problem with the "official" version of what made the towers collapse.
If you really would like to hear the structural engineering community explain the collapses to you WHY DON'T YOU ASK ONE?!?!
Or do you just want to assume that you know engineering better than someone who has actully got a diploma in it?
oh do forgive my assumption but my sister's name is alberta so it was a natural mistake!
If you really would like to hear the structural engineering community explain the collapses to you WHY DON'T YOU ASK ONE?!?!
wow why didn't i think of that?
okay, here's 2 questions:
how and why did 110 story steel/concrete towers explode into powder from the top down thru the path of most resistance in the same length of time it would take a bowling ball dropped from the same height to reach the ground?
and:
why does this mechanical engineer say that the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The "collapse" of all three WTC buildings may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.
First, our province was named after a british princess. Alberta is a girls name after all.
Second, the towers didn't collapse in the tame it would have taken your bowling ball to free fall the same hieght. This is a common distortion told by conspiracy theorists. Your bowling ball would have taken 9 seconds, the towers took as much as 33% longer at around 12 seconds.
Judy Wood is a MECHANICAL engineer who has spent her professional career studying human teeth. Not a STRUCTURAL engineer with experience with skyscrapers. She has none of the appropriate training or experience to analyze building collapse.
bowling ball would have taken 9 seconds, the towers took as much as 33% longer at around 12 seconds.
hmmm that's odd - the 9/11 commission stated that the wtc2 took 10 seconds from top to bottom and the NIST report stated that it only took 9 seconds from top to bottom -
and i notice that you haven't answered my question so am i to assume that you are not a structural engineer?
i think that prof. wood is more than qualified to analyze the demise of wtc1&2, but even if she were a simple rodeo clown her report would still speak for itself. if you think that her report is in error you should be specific in your critique of it.
lol.... trust the 9/11 morons to turn to a rodeo clown as an expert on structural engineering.
Got any other experts? A plumber, perhaps? How about the night cleaning crew down at work? Maybe that new cashier down at the 7-11?
and yet the three of you einsteins still have not explained how and why did 110 story steel/concrete towers explode into powder from the top down thru the path of most resistance in the same length of time it would take a bowling ball dropped from the same height to reach the ground?
It's funny that those who do believe the 'official version' of 911 should see this blog and those of others that don't agree with them as some sort of threat to their views. Why do they feel so threatened if it's just a bunch of BS?
Is this out of some kind of benevolent interest in the mental welfare of those who question the Government line or because they fear that these 'heretics' really do have a serious point to make with their 'alternative' research?
I would have thought that the 'official version' believers would have had something better to do with their time in this 'straightforward' it's-on-TV-so-it-must-be-true world that we're living in. LOL
I mean, why bother attacking others if you're so confident about what you believe? Little cracks appearing in your self-constructed prison of denial? - surely not.
I don't see why you official story huggers need to slander Judy Wood, who has a PhD in structural engineering. Her main research interest was in tooth structure, as a biomechanical engineering problem. What's the problem with that? She is perfectly qualified to critique the WTC collapses and you know it. Moreover, she presented her WTC analysis at an engineering conference, and no one expressed their doubts. Why more engineers haven't spoken out is probably becuase they are afraid of their jobs or grants or both. Sadly, Judy Wood DID lose her job at Clemson.
Finally, you still haven't answered James questions.
and yet the three of you einsteins still have not explained how and why did 110 story steel/concrete towers explode into powder from the top down thru the path of most resistance in the same length of time it would take a bowling ball dropped from the same height to reach the ground?
ASK...
A...
STRUCTURAL...
ENGINEER.
It's so simple, yet you refuse to do it. Are you afraid of what you will learn?
Oh yeah, there HAVE been other engineers who have spoken out about the collapses, such as Jeff Strahl and Richard Stanley, not to mention the are now a few engineers on ST911.
i'm beginning to get the feeling that alberta knows next to nothing about neither the wtc's structural make-up nor it's actual demise which has been recorded for posterity.
come-on alberta, if you don't understand it you should find a structural engineer to explain it to you!
how and why did 110 story steel/concrete towers explode into powder from the top down following the path of most resistance in the same length of time it would take a bowling ball dropped from the same height to reach the ground?
don't feel bad alberta, NIST has taken 5 years to write a 10,000 page report on this subject and they couldn't explain it either.
"The structural engineering community is solidly on the side of the "official" verion of events."
Actually, is this true? All you know of is people who have been paid to analyze the collapses and other careerists who have been afraid to speak contrary to the official line.
it seems to me that if the structural engineering community is solidly on the side of the "official" version of events then there would be no shortage of links to explanations of such.
And there isn't any such shortage:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
rebuttals of denial?
alberta your list of links is ridiculous.
what happened to your structural engineering community is solidly on the side of the "official" verion of events.?
i don't see your structural engineering community anywhere in your list of links.
in that list of links there is not one single explanation for how and why did 110 story steel/concrete towers explode into powder from the top down following the path of most resistance in the same length of time it would take a bowling ball dropped from the same height to reach the ground.
1) Why would a supporter of the Official Version of 9/11 events bother himself or herself to come to a blog site like this one?
2) Why would someone that is certain of the OCT care about ACTIVELY seeking out people that believe differently?
3) How do we know that the OCTers one commonly encounters on the Web aren't ALL P A I D Shills?
Post a Comment
<< Home