Welcome to Fractal Forums

http://youtu.be/OQgVCj7q49o (http://youtu.be/OQgVCj7q49o)
http://youtu.be/YW6mJOqRDI4 (http://youtu.be/YW6mJOqRDI4)
http://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M (http://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M)
http://ae911truth.org/ (http://ae911truth.org/)

Moved to  Non-Fractal related Chit-Chat as it does not seem to be a Fractal Math, Chaos Theory & Research sort of topic.

Granted, I did not watch the videos, so if I am mistaken, please let me know!

9 hours of video!?
I've got better things to do.
Heres 4 minutes,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

even if every last inch of structural steel magically evaporated the instant the planes hit, only 2 of the 3 buildings that collapsed that day were hit by planes, and magically evaporated steel still doesnt explain how all those millions of tons of concrete could explode into pryoclastic clouds of microscopic pulverized dust at the acceleration of gravity  :)

I give you a video explaining how the steel lost strength due to heat and you talk of evaporated steel.
Know what a "Straw Man" argument is?

What millions of tons of concrete? http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html
425,000 cubic yards of concrete at 4000lb a yard thats 771,107 metric tonnes for the whole complex.
The concrete in the tower were the 4inch thick floor slabs, the rest of the structure was steel.
Most of that concrete will be in the foundations and below ground car parks.
The whole point of the design of the WTC towers was to keep the structure light to build it tall, hence a minimum of concrete.
Those clouds of dust are probably gypsum wallboard, plaster and sprayed fire resistant materials.
A pyroclastic flow is a super hot cloud of volcanic ash and lava particles.
People were coated in the dust but not burnt, it was not a pyroclastic flow.

Building 7 collapsed after 7 hours of fire and damage from north tower debris, this is not remarkable, to me.

I give you the benefit of pretending your argument holds more weight than it does and you claim straw man?  curious.  perhaps you would care to tear down my "straw man" argument with facts, evidence, and science?  I say something about millions of tons of concrete to make a point about the obvious implications of real-world physics and your best retort is to state that perhaps the specific amount of concrete was over 3/4 of a million tons instead of a million or more?  Yet again, a curious focal point.  So let us revise what was said and say that hundreds of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete were pulverized into clouds of microscopic dust at the acceleration of gravity in not one, not two, but 3 steel-framed skyscrapers that day, more than the number of skyscrapers that were hit by planes, and the first and last time in history that a steel-framed skyscraper "collapsed" due to fire.  What was your argument again?  I guess I lost track amidst all the facts and evidence.  If I missed some facts and evidence, dare I say even science, please, I implore you to set the record straight.

On the internet there is no such thing as evidence.

Everything can be written.
Every text can be altered.
Every photo can be shopped.
Every identity can dissappear, or be created.
Every video can be faked.

So without any of these hard facts, logical arguments don't have any base at all.

If you want to discuss this thing over evidence, I suggest you arrange a real life meeting. Please don't bother trying to talk it through here on the forum, it won't work and I don't like it. I'm sure than over 80% of the people here are not interested aswell.

Quite a distressing statistic if indeed it is true that over 80% of scientifically and mathematically inclined people are not interested in discussing matters of fact and science.  If your belief that there is no such thing as evidence and logic precludes you from intelligently participating in the discussion, I welcome and encourage you to refrain from participating.  On the other hand, if logic and evidence do in fact exist, and you are not overcome with dismay at their existence, I welcome and encourage you to participate.

You are right though, anyone can cobble together a clip of audio or video.  For instance, I cut this 2 minute clip out of the aforementioned 9 hours of video I linked to that apparently is too lengthy and detailed for over 80% of people to find the time or desire to view or comment on:

http://filebin.net/6jklp7njsb/molten.mkv (http://filebin.net/6jklp7njsb/molten.mkv)

Every non-robot person that claims they behave and discuss based on +50% logic and rationality is lying. Agreeing upon the basic stuff is kinda like emotion and belief, from there on you should have a common base. I doubt that you will find it here. So the discussion will not go past the emotional/belief/non-logical phase. I've seen this too many times over more than the last 10 years.

Let's vote. Anyone up for a poll?

No wait, let's not pull anyone in. Just see the reactions so far:

Sockratease: I did not watch the videos
panzerboy: 9 hours of video!? I've got better things to do.
me: Please don't bother trying to talk it through here on the forum

Should give a clear signal. Continuing would almost be trolling, so this will be my last message in this topic.

Evidence is the same whether online or off.  All can be faked or misrepresented equally, so an online discussion is no more or less valid than any other - all must be taken as spurious and any extraordinary claims must be accompanied by extraordinary proof regardless of topic, source, or nature of the discussion.

If you don't like it, just stay away.  I don't like this topic either, nor do I think it belongs on Fractal Forums, but I respect quaz0r's right to discuss any topic he wants to discuss in our off topic area.  Please try to refrain from telling people what to do or how to do it unless they are WAY out of line and breaking site rules in some manner - at which point, have at 'em!

You will notice that my only question was about whether the videos linked to involved any sort of Fractal Analysis of the subject because this was originally posted in the Fractal Math, Chaos Theory & Research section.  Beyond that, I have had my fill of this topic years ago as well.


Let's be fair - most of us are working adults and even one hour of video is a lot to ask somebody to sit through in order to discuss a topic that has been beaten to death for 14 years!  

As for my opinions on this topic, I feel much is left unanswered and we will never know the whole truth in our lifetimes.

But there is enough evidence on both sides of this discussion to prevent any firm conclusions being drawn.  If I were so inclined I am sure I could find just as many hours of video debunking conspiracy theories on this topic as supporting them.  The discussion will not be resolved here, but feel free to continue it in a civil manner and try not to argue too much please.  

Well, one did speak out loud:"The Titanic can not sink!".
The Twin Towers were well known as structures that could not collapse. Earthquake ,Tornado and even bombing proof.

But hey, it takes a heavy weight to knock down a heavy weight.
A heavy weight filled up with kerosine just makes it easy.

Like if it was yesterday I remember the Bijlmerramp (The Bijlmer Disaster) in the Netherlands.
A Plane demolished two large appartement buildings after dropping the fuel.
Only 43 died and 23 injured because most people were not at home at the moment.
It was devastating such an impact the plane had.
Imagine what a larger plane loaded with fuel can do....

http://www.refdag.nl/polopoly_fs/anp_5572112_1_679699!image/405615011.jpg (http://www.refdag.nl/polopoly_fs/anp_5572112_1_679699!image/405615011.jpg)

of course if you actually watched the >10 hours of video i posted, or consulted the endless amount of evidence in any other form, or even just used basic common sense, you would realize that the majority of the jet fuel was burned up in the initial explosions of the planes that hit wtc 1 and 2, and either way the jet fuel contained by those planes would not come anywhere remotely close to containing enough volume to affect the entirety of the buildings, much less somehow magically melt all the structural steel from the top all the way to the ground, much less account for the fact that both towers AND wtc7, which was not hit by an airplane, "collapsed" into their own footprint in the same exact manner at the acceleration of gravity.  also that is an interesting picture you posted.  it looks like the entirety of the structure was engulfed in flame.  much the opposite of wtc 1, 2, and 7.  even so, did that structure "collapse" into its own footprint at the acceleration of gravity i wonder?

and sockratease, as fair as you are trying to be, lets be *actually* fair, and acknowledge that there exists no "debunking" material that *actually* addresses anywhere close to the majority of evidence and scientific facts pointed out by the >2300 architects and engineers and others who have tirelessly worked to compile the endless amount of facts and science relevant to this case.  for example, there are very excellent articles on the architects and engineers website that highlight the ridiculous content of the popular mechanics "debunking" article.  if you actually look at any of this "debunking" material, it is entirely devoid of real science and factual evidence.

every single piece of trash promulgated by the "debunking" crowd has been picked apart piece by piece at length by real experts, so to suggest that there is an equal amount of data going either way is far from an accurate depiction of reality.


And yes, let us be actually fair here - what kind of statement is this exactly?  most of us are working adults so we cant be bothered by science and reality?  and people who do bother to talk about science and reality are...something other than working adults?  the retarded or infirm i take it?  a most puzzling and most troubling statement.  if your status as a self-reliant adult precludes you from engaging in discussions of matters of fact and reality, please, by all means, do not participate.

@quaz0r
Please try not to quote people out of context.
The point was about allocation of time.

the point was most certainly not just about allocation of time.  the following statement would make perfect sense on its own:


instead it was qualified with this:


if someone said "hey, i like fried chicken," and someone responded with "Let's be fair - most of us are caucasian adults and i dont like fried chicken," that would be a far different statement than simply "i dont like fried chicken."  and the point most certainly would not just be about not liking fried chicken.

Feel free to take sentence fragments out of context and invent your own fictitious motivations for them all you like.

It just makes you look bad.

Of course it was about having enough time to sit through 9 hours of video!

Not only that, it was pointing out that as a working adult, I have other responsibilities which preclude allocating that much time to something which I have already researched in the hopes of discovering a sentence or two I have not already heard - but the most important point was totally lost on you, so here it is again in all it's original and unedited glory:


Sorry if you are just young and all this is new to you, but I have been through it all over a decade ago - I'm actually shocked you didn't bring up all the questionable data around the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon!  And the "us" comment was referring to the fact that it was another member who first complained about the fact that the many hours of video are not helpful - and in fact it works against the possibility of getting others interested in seeing what may be contained therein.

The main justification for my indifference is the indisputable fact that, as I clearly said, "there is enough evidence on both sides of this discussion to prevent any firm conclusions being drawn" which clearly shows that I am not dismissing the possibility it was a hoax, but neither do I dispute that it may well be what "they" say it was.

Due to the stupid long wait times for classified data being released to the public, I reiterate my position that I find the discussion to be pointless since it will never be resolved in our lifetimes!  There were others, including moderators in our private moderators forum, who wanted this topic removed - and it was me who stood up for your right to discuss it.  Do not make me regret that decision with personal attacks which are obviously contrived and clearly without merit.  If this topic degrades into insults and arguing rather than discussion, it will be locked, and possibly removed.  :police:

And don't you dare accuse me of not caring about science - I happen to be a scientist and find that to be a totally groundless and childish insult  (if you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger!).  Accepting that an area of research will lead nowhere regardless of how many hours of youtube videos one watches is a valid conclusion.  Possibly the only valid conclusion possible on this subject.

Anything else is idle speculation, which you are welcome to indulge in to your heart's content.  But do not ever place your fantasy ideas about other people's motivations on such a high pedestal that you are willing to proclaim them as fact.  

my response to your qualifier of "most of us are working adults" was entirely valid, in addition to my elaboration on the matter in my last post,


and your sentiments about age and self-reliance even continues here in the very response in which you tell me i dreamed it all up and took it all out of context. :-\


i would posit that responding in a calm, collected, and intelligent manner to the actual content of what others say does not make one look bad.  i would further posit that the off-topic distractions offered by some of those who respond to this thread instead of offering intelligent insights into the subject at hand is the sort of thing that makes one look bad.


clearly that was part of what you said.  the qualifier about most of us being working adults was also part of what you said.


yes i did actually read and understand all of what you said.  you have indicated that you have looked into this subject and are perhaps more informed on the matter than the average person.  im not sure how i indicated that i didnt understand that.  to the contrary, much respect to you for that!   :)


sorry to quote that a second time but, really, what is that even doing there?  :-\  this is the sort of thing that makes one look bad.  im reticent to even validate it with a response, but since you feel so passionately about it, it just so happens that i too am an adult and was also an adult at the time of the 911 attacks, and also have been familiar with all the material on the subject for a long time.


indeed, there is just so much information and so many facets to what happened that day.  what i really like about the architects and engineers group for instance is that they focus on the destruction of the 3 world trade center buildings, as the most clear-cut evidence and scientific analysis can be applied to this one topic alone, which also acts to filter out lots of the conspiracy theorizing and such that one can do regarding the events as a whole.   :)


you dont need to justify your indifference or waning interest in the subject.  sorry if you felt like i was attacking you for that or whatever.  certainly most if not all of us who have been around and researched this over the past 14 years is at least somewhat burned out.


no doubt.  :)


i realized that, and appreciate that.  again, much respect!  :)


again, sorry if i come on a bit strong, im simply passionate about reality.  again though i was simply responding to something that was actually said, not something i dreamed up with no merit.  if the bit about most people being working adults just slipped in there without any negative connotations intended, you can just say so and i can accept that.


hmm, i just reread my posts and im not seeing where i either said or insinuated that.  maybe im just not seeing it.  either way, thats not what i think about you... as youve said you have actually done research on this topic which is not the actions of someone who isnt interested in reality.


indeed it will likely never be resolved in an official capacity.   :-\   this is why i am passionate about trying to ignite discussions about it wherever i can.   :)

actually i just realized you were probably responding to my response to your bit about working adults.  i more took that as an excuse you were offering for those other than yourself who would claim they cant be bothered to take a look at the evidence.  what i said in response to that was more responding to that statement in a general sense, not really insinuating anything about you personally, as you had already indicated you were personally well-versed on the subject.  in any case, i think we're focusing on the wrong things here.  what i find more notable is that we share a genuine passion for knowing reality for what it really is.  i dont know about you, but i always find it highly refreshing to learn that im not the only one who actually wants to know the universe for what it really is, regardless whether it is upsetting or challenging or horrible or beautiful or anywhere in between.  the vast majority of people have motivations other than a pure desire to know reality for what it is, regardless what they might claim.  cheers   :beer:

Nope, the structures did not collapse at all.
And they were only 10 floors high.
100 appartements were demolished but not collapsed.

https://youtu.be/nN3qUXJp7l0?list=PLthPsWmE3cefpc2sBzI9gamfS9eJRdgEK

In case 4 minutes weren't enough

indeed 4 minutes is not indicative that a presentation will adequately respond to all the analysis offered by presentations measuring from 2 to 5 hours in duration.  this one you link to is 17 minutes.  that is probably insufficient as well, but i have higher hopes for this one.  lets see what we have here.

"The following video contains footage of the 9/11 attacks that some viewers my find distressing."  reads the disclaimer at the beginning of the video.  this presentation hasnt even begun yet and my hopes for a detail-oriented top-notch production are already suffering.

"a friend of mine said i should take this opportunity to walk down to ground zero and ask some 9/11 truthers about the tragic events of 2001."  honestly, this is all you really need to know about this presentation to safely stop watching and not worry about missing out on anything intelligent or relevant.  this is a favored tactic of those unwilling or incapable of responding to the person, group, idea, or body of information in question.  even more cowardly than attacking the actual messenger, go out on the street corner and find a few individuals who identify themselves as supporters of the person, group, idea, or body of information, and capture them appearing silly, stupid, and ignorant.  of course you can do this with anything, and the only thing it proves is your own cowardice.  you could go out on the street corner and find people who believe the official 9/11 story who also believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago by a guy on a cloud with a beard.  you could go out on the street corner and find people who believe the earth revolves around the sun who also are holocaust deniers.  i bet you could even go out and find people who believe in newton's 3 laws of motion who also believe that the official theory of the 3 world trade center skyscrapers pulverizing themselves to dust from the top down through the path of greatest resistance by way of gravitational collapse is an entirely plausible scientific possibility.  :dink:   here's one i saw recently that was kind of amusing, this guy goes around interviewing people off the street who identify themselves as obama supporters who think that karl marx is obama's foreign policy advisor or something and endorse karl marx to run for president: 

http://youtu.be/99JdDgglMuA

but i digress.   ;D

of course the fact that i could stop watching this presentation before it even begins and remain totally confident that i am not missing out on anything intelligent or relevant does not mean i will.  what fun would that be?   :)  lets continue.

first off, we get to interview a cat lady on the street corner about her thoughts on which model airplanes the twin towers were designed to withstand an impact from.  according to her recollection it is probably a newer model than the boeing 707.  poor cat lady.  you are about to get debunked.  amidst the ensuing debunking we are even offered up nice formulas like the formula for finding the kinetic energy of an object.  this rekindled my hopes for this presentation, but only fleetingly.  apparently the math and physics related to the impact of the airplanes is more relevant than the math and physics related to the actual destruction of the 3 world trade center buildings, despite the fact that wtc 1 and 2 survived the actual impact of the planes, and wtc 7 was not even hit by an airplane.

"but i think we're all forgetting something here, which is that the twin towers did survive the impacts [...] and they stood for a long time."  as it turns out, apparently we can all actually agree on this one:  the cat lady interview and the debunking that ensued was entirely irrelevant.  lets continue.

"the reason the towers collapsed was a mixture of damage from the impacts and the resulting fires which weakened the steel."  out of nowhere we land dead-center bullseye at the crux of the matter.  unfortunately, the presenter's previously apparent affinity for math and physics is absent here, as no formulas or explanations are offered for reconciling the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.  instead, nebulous claims and counterclaims ensue regarding the color of smoke.  unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.

next, the presenter debates the cat lady on the finer points of office-fire-weakened steel.  unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.

next, the cat lady receives a well-deserved respite as we move on to debate some other street-goers on the potential implications of bowing of the outer columns of the twin towers.  unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.

next, we are reminded as we always are by "debunkers" that the fire-proof foam was likely to have been blown out by the impact of the planes.  unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.

next, it is declared that some steel beams were likely to have been weakened, some possibly even collapsing, resulting in outer columns bowing and snapping, all culminating in... "and then the building collapsed."  we even get nice history-channel animations of beams sagging, trusses snapping, and outer columns bowing.  unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.

next, we confront more street-goers about bowing outer columns at the impact sites and what this has to do with reconciling the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.  errr, sorry, i got a little ahead of myself there.  rather, we next confront more street-goers about bowing outer columns at the impact sites and what implications this might have on theories of controlled demolition.  finally, the presenter of this video seems to have struck a fatal blow to cat lady and her street-going compatriots, successfully ensnaring them in a question they arent quite sure how to respond to, causing them to stammer a bit and look rather foolish.  we even get a cute little popup text that reads, "They can't explain it or they change the question."  this coming from a video that seeks to ensnare a cat lady on the street corner and make her and other street-goers look stupid, instead of actually responding to any of the vast quantity of data and analysis offered by professional architects and engineers!  as cute as this is, though, it still unfortunately does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.

next, the presenter poses the question, "what evidence do truthers have that these buildings came down by controlled demolition?"  hmm, this sounds like a potentially promising line of questioning.  my hopes for this presentation are once again slightly rekindled, albeit with strong reservations at this point.  the presenter then informs us that he has 3 hours of footage on this topic, but he is "only going to talk about a few things," because he is "only one guy."  i also look and see that there is less than 10 minutes left in this presentation.  of course we'll go ahead and assume he chose to present to us the most salient clips of the least wacky looking, best informed, and most articulate street-goers.   :)

"Truthers say that an object at freefall would take around 10 seconds to fall from the height of the twin towers, and the fact that they fell in 10 seconds proves that demolition charges were blowing floors out beneath the point of collapse, allowing the buildings to fall at freefall.  This is already really easy to disprove.  Just look at the footage for yourself and time it.  It's well above 10 seconds, and in fact most of the footage even shows part of the lower portions of both towers, around 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2, remain standing for up to 25 seconds after the initial collapse."  There are a few different things going on here, lets take them one at a time.

"Truthers say that an object at freefall would take around 10 seconds to fall from the height of the twin towers."  Sadly, my initial hypothesis that the presenter is a math and physics buff appears to be debunked by this statement.  It seems he is unfamiliar with the acceleration of gravity, and presents it as a conspiracy theory proffered by "truthers."  oh well, nobody is perfect, and i am more interested in addressing the information offered by the messenger than attacking the messenger.  so, lets continue.

"And the fact that they fell in 10 seconds proves that demolition charges were blowing floors out beneath the point of collapse, allowing the buildings to fall at freefall.  This is already really easy to disprove.  Just look at the footage for yourself and time it.  It's well above 10 seconds."  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), simply declaring that black is white does not make it so.  We can easily find many official videos of the collapse of world trade center buildings 1, 2, and 7, and count for ourselves the amount of time the "collapse" sequences took.  While it is understandably clocked at not quite exactly the acceleration of gravity throughout the entire "collapse" sequence, we can see that the actual rate at which the destruction of all 3 wtc buildings occurs does indeed approach the acceleration of gravity.  Yet even if one insisted that black is white and the towers "collapsed" in 30 seconds, or 30 minutes, or 30 hours, this still does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion!

"And in fact most of the footage even shows part of the lower portions of both towers, around 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2, remain standing for up to 25 seconds after the initial collapse."  this is so pathetic i feel kind of bad even responding to it.  i mean, just look at what he is referring to: 

(http://i1.someimage.com/oF7gwHY.jpg)

how embarrassing.  clearly when someone refers to the rate of a "collapse" sequence they are referring to...the rate of the actual "collapse" sequence, not how long it took some residual beam to fall over later.  i am beginning to wonder if this video is actually meant to be a parody on "debunkers."  alas, lets continue.

next, we get to view a rather lengthy exchange between the presenter and another street-goer about this residual beam.  the street-goer is unfamiliar with this beam.  a sad day for yet another street-goer.  bro, you are so debunked.  lets continue.

"Also, for some reason, truthers put in the whole height of the twin towers when they do their equations to work out that its going to take 10 seconds to fall at freefall.  Why don't they take it from where the point of collapse is?  I never really understood that."  Clearly there is a lot this guy doesnt understand, not the least of which being newton's third law of motion.  But first lets address the most ridiculous implication of this statement.  Keeping in mind that these buildings "collapsed" through the path of greatest resistance straight down into themselves, what do you expect to find by instead starting your measurement at the points of impact?  are you going to find that the section beneath the point of impact fell slower than the section above it?  an interesting day for physics that would be.  But lets move on to where this line of questioning really leads us.

newton's third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  the gravitational collapse theory postulates that due to structural damage at the point of impact, the section of structure above the point of impact initiates a "collapse" sequence in which this upper section piledrives the entirety of the intact structure below it straight down to the ground through the path of most resistance, pulverizing it to dust at nearly the acceleration of gravity.  quite a day for physics that would be if that were indeed the case, regardless whether that happened at exactly the acceleration of gravity or a hair less.  of course the fact that the destruction of all 3 wtc buildings did indeed approach the acceleration of gravity makes this theory all the more absurd.  where could the extra energy come from that would be required for the smaller upper section to pulverize the much larger intact lower section through the path of most resistance straight into the ground?  newton is unquestionably rolling in his grave at such an obviously ridiculous theory.

this gravitational collapse theory and its implications is of course the crux of the issue regarding the collapse of the 3 wtc buildings, and is never actually addressed by any "debunking" material i have ever seen.  how could it be?  instead, of course, they at best try to focus the conversation on other details, or they pick out some ridiculous theories about lizard people or giant ray guns or something to "debunk," or at worst you get the sort of drivel offered by this presentation, in which a handful of street-goers are made to look goofy or foolish.  however, there is still a few minutes left in this presentation which may contain further enlightenment.  lets continue.

next, we are presented with a replay of the destruction of one of the towers, showing falling debris outside the perimeter of the building, positioned below the main point of "collapse."  it is declared that this clearly disproves the rate of "collapse" being close to the acceleration of gravity.  ironically however, the actual point of "collapse" never escapes the frame of this zoomed-in shot tracking this piece of debris, staying in nearly perfect sync with this piece of debris all the way down.

and of course next we ask some poor sap on the street corner what he thinks about this.  he isnt quite sure what to make of it.  bro, do you even truther?  yet another street-goer debunked.

next, we get to hear from a street-goer who fancies numerology and is sure that various numbers aligned that fateful day and created some vortex from another dimension which caused 9/11 and, or well, ya know, something along these lines.  no comment.

of course this video wouldnt feel properly complete without returning to home base and interviewing the cat lady one last time.  we discuss elevators and explosions with her for a bit.  according to her, the police and firemen that arrived heard explosions before the planes even hit the towers.  oh, cat lady.  you are really in for it now.  of course there were no responders present before anything actually happened.  cat lady debunked again!

well, all things considered, i must admit i am quite disappointed with this presentation.  of course, i am not only able and willing, but in fact quite eager to take any information someone links me to, digest it in its entirety, respond to the actual content contained therein, and offer my analysis of every last bit of it.  kram1032 and others, can you say the same?

I think is a huge movement getting stronger and stronger, spreading semi thrust and non information. The real conspiracy is feeding the surfaced theories, in order to cover up the deeper conspiracy (The Conspiracy). The moment you think you know that you begin to understand what is really going on, that is the moment they have got you. I have to generalize these underground organisations, because speaking out loud - or worse - writing down the name is like saying Allah is gay among ISIS. Those guys are also caught up by the bigger plan They have steered towards. Blowing up buildings and people is just the beginning. It's like counting to six about six times, which lead to the Sixth Extinction soon. Carefully crafted industries slowly but surely changing the mighty metabolism of mother earth. Gravity will pull things further when the moon lines up with the next coming solar eclipse, causing the edges of the crust of the earth to shift and crumble. Huge masses of CO2 and H2S will escape from the underground for some 10s of thousands of years. They have been plotting this for centuries, even before they landed on planet Earth in our dimension. They only look human because their 3D projection is all we see. Like an iceberg the bigger part is hidden. Their existence stretches in the upper dimensions from our earth to far beyond the centre of the multiverse. The only thing I keep failing to understand is the following. The huge scale difference in both time and space between us and Them. I mean, as they tap power straight from the purest form of hate and evil, they are more powerfull then Zeus, Powerman, Apple, OPEC, Kim, Elvis and the whole gang of Roman gods (and those bastards god-human fluffs that followed) combined. Outliving multiple universe like a child popping soap bubbles ... why even bothering with those awesome dude humans living as almost invisible dots on their tiny rock, on a timeframe that would be a blink of an eye for Them? I don't get it. I thinks I need some religion or stuff. Preferably in a small group of other true truthseekers. I mean, there must be an easy way out of this messy organic agglomeration of matter. This escape has not showed itself yet, but the way forward is clear to see. We need some scientists, poets, shamans and hard workers. Also some fast runners and highly attractive bitches to draw the attention of the unwilling and ignorant. Most importantly, we need YOU. It's totally OK for the runners to lose both legs, hell we would even decapitate them in order to set an example for the shamans to stay the fluff away from those horny bitches. Please don't cut yourself, we need every working living cell you can provide. Understandably, it will be a shame if all those clones walk around will fresh cuts they can't remember. Don't swim in the sea with sharks, keep away from dogs and cats and learn to smear with a spoon. BUT DO NOT BEND IT just yet, timing is everything. ( ... walks away to check dinner). Now is the time to prepare for the moment, which will happened Soon. The sun will tell, if you can only get your woman to offer your son. She will understand, as my good friend gave her a clear vision after the came (you know, while you were away for that day). Anyway, there are still some important points left to save our bubble in the multiverse. Be sure to check in next time. Other place, other time. I must now run. Dinner. Laterz!  :beer:

Just saying I NEVER wrote "fluffs", "fluff" or "awesome dude". This would of course be a bit weird in this context.  :police:

@youhn: so, you've met the big brother! the mighty computer overlords....  I suggest you be nice to them! ;)
I'm no friend of censorship myself, but this is a forum for all ages with focus on art and science and we want to keep it "civilized"


@quaz0r, I have one question.
Let's just assume that all this is true.
not what youhn said  ;D, but you and the videos you posted - that I haven't watched either, I'Ve had my share and too many hours spent with this years ago.
ok, so assumed this is true:
what do you suggest is the next step? what to do with that information?

youhn, it is just as i feared.  the rabbit hole goes way deeper than previously thought!  this changes everything.   ;D

hey chillheimer, as far as a next step, such a "next step" would implicitly be in an official capacity, as there isnt much beyond shouting from your soapbox that the average schlub can really accomplish.  the architects and engineers group calls for a new investigation, as the first "investigation" did not involve much investigating.  in fact, what was actually done following the events of 9/11 was illegal.  instead of preserving the crime scene for investigation, the crime scene was destroyed as they immediately began shipping off all the rubble.  they also refused to investigate the possibility of explosives, which is mandated by National Fire Protection Association’s Guide For Fire And Explosion Investigations, NFPA 921.

i would think though that the first logical next step before a new investigation would actually be launched would be for anyone to answer the architects and engineers' call for peer review of both the official story and their own analysis.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/890-ae911truth-reaches-out-to-philosophers-and-engineers.html

From the article:  "Coste pointed out that members of the scientific, engineering, and academic communities normally rely on peer review — which is now understood as meaning oversight by and accountability to qualified members of a relevant field — to enhance the quality, integrity, and credibility of a product. Absent peer review, he said, it is possible for errors and omissions to be incorporated into a report or study. Ever since its inception in 2006, AE911Truth has been calling for a peer review of the official accounts of 9/11, as well as of its own scientific theory of what happened to the three demolished World Trade Center buildings."

while it might be cute and funny for joe schmoe to head down to the street corner and try to make other schlubs standing there with a 911 sign look goofy, apparently it is much more difficult for real professionals to conduct real peer review, as over the last 14 years nobody is answering this call to peer review of either the official account or that of the architects and engineers group.

I love this!!!! I come to a fractal forum and 9/11 follows me here too !!!! :D :D

I've safely skipped reading any of the posts since each of us will believe what we WANT to believe on this topic, since the alternative means a complete breakdown of everything that we have believed for the bulk of our lives.


On my part i think the truth got figured out in steps somewhere between 2004 - 2008. Since then its a matter of time before the info reaches everybody. Between the collective works of Prof Steven Jones of BYU, Dr Neils Harrit of Copenhagen Uni & the journalist Chris Bollyn everything has more or less been cracked. Of course for each ounce of truth there exists at least a metric tonne of misinfo so good luck to all of us on reaching a consensus...

Can one of the moderators PLEASE halt this thread.
Putting in the non-fractal related does not mean carte blanche for tired conspiracy theories that are actually quite disrespectful to those who were affected by it.

I'm not a friend of too much  :police:

how about we just stop posting here and stop bringing it into view... (i'm really tired of it as well)
but in the end it's christians decision

we thought this would decline itself, censoring is a bit of problematic here, i am going to lock this thread because of the non fractal nature of it ....


* THREAD LOCKED * BECAUSE OF NON FRACTAL NATURE *

it might stay, but it is possible that it is going to removed at anytime!

This may be abuse of power as a moderator (only Mods can post in a locked thread), but just because there is a way to close it out nicely by bringing the topic back to fractals, while not losing sight of the subject at hand, here is a tribute to the fallen on September 11th, 2001, done many years ago in Chaoscope and titled "World Trade Center"  (It's been in my Gallery here for a long time too).

(http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/3/162_11_09_10_4_38_13.jpeg) (http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=3466)

This post can be deleted if it is offensive.