UKC

I have noticed a number of recent accounts, all pushing a similar political viewpoint, and not posting on anything other than political threads.

Am I living up to my nom-de-net, or are we being 'influenced'...?

Can you remember which threads? That sounds interesting. 

We have been since March at least.  The site owners very rapidly delete the most egregious threads and user accounts it seems - good on them.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-the-77th-brigade-britains-informatio...

Yeah I’ve noted a lot of them lately. Countless postings from accounts opened in recent months, with no logbook, no wish list, no profile details and no history of postings on the forum, with exception of a couple of politically persuasive entries! I thus theorise that those wishing to influence others must no doubt sign up to kayaking forums, running forums, cycling forums, etc, etc, repeating their posts to maximise coverage.
 

An example includes one regarding a petition to stop an incinerator in Portland, posted in recent days.

It’s a well established fact nowadays that the state-sponsored flooding of social media, forums, online newsfeeds, etc, is an inexpensive and powerful tool to influence the proletariat masses in favour of a selected theme. The 21st century battle is for you mind.

Oh, good!... I love a nice bit of lingerie, me.

Do all these other sports have the same format as UKC?

Who? I see absolutely nothing wrong with you just saying the user names. I can't say I have noticed it that really, but I don't read anything in down the pub threads so miss a lot of the political/current affairs discussions I think. I also get confused between various different anonymous or quasi-anonymous posters.

I joined primarily for the notoriously riotous politics discussions.

Are you outing yourself as a deep state sock puppet then?! spasibo tovarishch/спасибо товарищ! How's the weather in St Petersburg currently.

There are some superb disinformation campaigns out there. Some have run their course, others are just picking up. Just because it's trying to sway your views, doesn't necessarily mean its run by a dubious government or their lackeys.

One of the beauties of the internet, is that anyone who can spell internet can exert influence. It's not that hard. There are an awful lot of companies who are ad agencies or 'viral marketeers' or similar. What do you need to get started? A computer, a VPN or two and some software. There are howto's on running viral campaigns on social media. You can buy likes, retweets and links. All that's really needed is a giant ego, a crap suit, the ability to bulls*it your customers and yourself. Throw in some gullible / dodgy customers and you're a new media guru.  

Please call out the dubious, but be aware there are only so many times you can say the 'ruskies are coming'. People soon label you paranoid. Until you're right, of course. But then you don't get the credit, because the people who were calling you paranoid, simply say 'we knew that anyway'. But, curiously, they always seem to say it after the event.

If you want a master class in disinformation, see how Kenosha unfolds. 

Riotous?.... The place is a positive haven of tranquillity, these days.

You'd have loved it here back in the golden age of bunfights.

And you look lovely in it!

Thanks... I waxed my legs especially.

I don’t know about the Portland incinerator thread - the OP has been a member of the site for over 14 years. That would be a hell of a lot of forward planning for state sponsored influencing of our waste disposal schemes. I think that is just a normal site member who doesn’t use the forums.

It was more bun fighty, and also more diverse despite that.

The philosophical hippies no longer frequent these fora...

And then there were all the threads on scrambling (locations and grades) that were clearly started by Boris under two aliases to deflect our attention away from his incompetence.

No, no - that's Dominic. Far too sophisticated and clever for BJ.

I am a long time agent provocateur but I do it for free.

#TheBorisFireWasReal

#LoveChina

Shhhhh

And they do it all on an IBM XT!

the length and time devoted to some political threads by alleged posters makes me wonder if they are manned in shifts

seen the same thing on share websites

I wonder if any of this letched into the replies and likes / dislikes in the replies to the ‘Climbing has a race problem’ Article a few weeks ago. I was gobsmacked and disgusted by the discussion in there and the thread was being talked about across climbing Facebook groups and social media before it was locked. 

I seem to remember a guy saying his wife was Chinese and had never had an issue at the crag therefore there was absolutely no race problem at all in climbing, and other similar discussion that was baffling.  
 

That's nothing, they run our aircraft carriers off a BBC Micro.

Here is a classic 77th Brigade post.

https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/1298628053522886658/photo/1

You're a complete and utter loon.

Look at the sh*t Trump comes out with.  Professional disinformation does not look like reasonable communication.   The point is not to convince sensible people it is to provide bullsh*t emotive arguments to get stupid people to do what you want.  Being totally mental in your statements means they get retweeted and commented on by people piling in to disagree - which is exactly what you want because it means more people see them.

The original post came from George Galloway's crazy new unionist organisation.   http://www.alliance4unity.uk/   Amazingly Michael Gove is in talks with these lunatics.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gove-enlists-old-enemies-to-help-save-th...

  The retweet is from a unionist bot.   Bots like that are a classic tactic for organised manipulation of social media.   There are a ton of them and they all retweet and amplify the same sh*t.   Somebody is paying for them.  Are they UK military or are they some commercial outfit, I don't know.  But the UK military has the capability and the Vote Leave people currently running the country used the same tactics in the Brexit referendum.

Fake new users could be weeded out by requiring them to submit an answer to "what have they ever done on grit?".

Tom - you said that tweet was a classic piece from the UK military, now you say you dont know - which is it?

That wouldn't surprise me. The telephone exchanges I control are about as powerful as a Pentium PC.

I have no idea.  I was half kidding because it was so silly. 

However, I think the UK government is employing social media bots to support unionism, whether they are military bots or bots purchased from a commercial organisation or both I have no way of knowing.   The Tories have been open on allocating large amounts of money to 'support the union'.  Some of it is going on overt advertising with their name on it some on sh*t like social media bots.   

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-disinformation-twitter-facebook

That's a pretty good example of a thread with bots in it, as I mentioned on John's Covid thread. Here's one of them:

You're forgetting the much more subtle approach.

If you outright deny something it is easy to be dismissed. I.e: 'There is no climate change'.

It's far better to spread some confusion. I.e; 'Climate change is a real issue. There have been many climate events in earths history. More research is required to separate human influence from natural events.'

See what I did there? By agreeing with the point, I'm on your side of the argument. By questioning elements of the argument, using science, I'm not an enemy just misinformed. You will spend your energy trying to educate me, rather than writing me off as a idiot or troll.

As I said further up, watch how Kenosha plays out. Kyle Rittenhouse, has gone from vigilante murderer, to potential presidential candidate and hero of the right, defender of American values.

No, I completely agree that is another approach.  There are multiple tactics in use to address different demographics.

Another tactic is to try and get an influential account with thousands of followers to engage in a debate with a brand new or kept-on-ice account and then say something provocative which doesn't quite break the rules, like implying the influential person is stupid.  What they want is for the influential account to get angry and step outside the rules so that they can complain - or get multiple bots to complain - and get the influential account banned.

You may be interested in 'Merchants of Doubt', Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

It's a fascinating account of the strategy you describe, whereby doubt and confusion has been used to question the validity of a number of topics such as the health impacts of smoking, acid rain, the ozone layer and of course climate change. The tactic is successful in that it has delayed action on all these topics by years, and in some cases decades. 

Trevor's axiom

Thanks for that. I'm aware of it, though I've not read it.

There is a rather blurry ven diagram that covers state sponsored hacking groups, state sponsored disinformation campaigns, criminal hacking groups, political influence groups, concerned groups of individuals, commercial influencing opperations and good old trolling. The trick is to appear to be in several camps and none, all at the same time.

But as you say such contributors are fairly easy to recognise.

I suspect the greater danger here are long established personalities but how in any case do you distinguish an 'influencer' from a 'contributor' ,

I believe the storks are flying low over Moscow this winter. 

Only when the wind blows from the East

Feel the same. Also dislike the abuse some get by those that disagree with comments. Right or left have views but feel it would be better to keep them to yourselves.

Then what’s the point of forums?

They were a sleeper agent!

With you linking to websites disseminating conspiracy theories based on far right rhetoric, which do you think you are?

I'm a failed influencer - I have no JTRIG training

In good UKC tradition: Should it not be agents provocateurs?* You will never get a proper answer if you leave an open flank to the pedant army!

CB

* no idea, really, as my French is crap, but that has never stopped anyone from posting!

What about from the Internet Research Agency?

No, I have no training from them either ! I have NO training . Except what life has handed me.

Interesting coincidence the 'IRA'. IMHO we are more at risk from the CCDH agents - renamed by some as the Center for Cancel Culture & Digital Hypocrisy. An pseudo NGO concerned with internet censoring;  it starts out with honest & unilaterally acceptable objectives - but progresses into 'the party line' ie. anything which doesn't agree with their politics - is dangerous.

So who is it you felt got treated too harshly - Hopkins, Galloway or Icke? The mind boggles!

Whatever 'black & white' judgment you can slap on any of these personalities - such a viewpoint will not be justifiable for a.n.other - in the regard of others. By all means circulate opinions and advise - but this should not prohibit people from internet presence - just because they hold a differing viewpoint.

Context matters.

Very easy, and very justifiable, to slap a 'black and white' judgement on any such 'a.n.other' who's espousing batshit crazy ideas about such things as holocaust denial, 5g covid links, fake moon-landings, etc. Not that people shouldn't be allowed to espouse such nonsense on the internet, but IMO whenever such nonsense appears it should be accompanied by a message that such ideas have been comprehensively and irrefutably discredited and remain the preserve of either wishful thinkers or those not in possession of their faculties.

Well there's a start - which however reasonable may be just the thin end of the censoring wedge. From where / how is Icke banned - just from appearing on Twitter / FB ?

The problem is immediately less black and white in our current predicament in consideration of covid-19 cures / therapies. Should cures other than WHO recommendations be visible on the media / internet ? 

More generally - should the public be prevented choosing any 'herbal' / 'alternative' health  treatment for disease ?

I think it should be pretty obvious that nothing should be able to be promoted and described as a 'cure' to any medical condition unless it has approval from whatever medical establishment is recognised as the competent authority. That leaves people to make all sorts of claims about quack remedies, but IMO none of these should be allowed to be referred to as a 'cure' or a 'treatment' and all references to non-verified interventions should be auto-flagged with a warning that they do not share the widespread support of medical experts.  When they're actively harmful - such as ingesting bleach - rather than simply ineffectual, they should be identified as such and in some cases perhaps sales should be prohibited. And, yes, this also should be the case for current and well-established 'alternative medicine' interventions such as homeopathy. I'm sure you'll be able to identify grey areas but that would be missing the point of such public information and health protection measures.

That was me... Wrong Asian but who cares, right? You've completely mischaraterised my statements (I was asking for specific examples to back up another's assertions of race issues in the outdoor as their experience didn't match mine-they were. Being evasive) but if it helps you live your little life denying that opposing opinions exist in the world then so be it.

You again didn't answer the question once again, so I'm putting you down as holding a bit of a torch for that Katie H!

But mate, feel free to keep sharing links of far-right websites going on about the New World Order and how covid is all a hoax. No one is stopping you, but in the same vein I'll keeping calling it bullshit and far right bilge when it is.

To be an echo chamber!  An allegation often shouted by someone of any persuasion when they loose an argument...

you need to consider your username before pursuing this agenda further...

"Am I living up to my nom-de-net"

No idea who she is

In political persuasion I'm largely with Monbiot - and (in UK context) Labour as led by Corbyn. Their views are often represented in the Guardian, but more pointedly in Double Down News.

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2019/december/exposed-the-secret-elite-gr...

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2019/22/december/why-labour-lost-oligarch...

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/27/august/its-time-to-overthrow-the-...

Otherwise I'm not averse to quoting material from sources which appear to be supported by backing of all persuasions - if I can see it is The Truth. ie. the truth of Real health, Real human sociological needs, Real care of the planet etc I have no direct empathy with Far Right politics

Now it's your turn. What are your political persuasions ?

'Recognised as competent' & 'widespread support' - as approved by the new Silicon Valley authority of Google, Facebook & their alliance with the W H O ?

Double Down has something to say on phramaceutical interests: 

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/5/may/when-it-comes-to-a-coronavirus...

But they don't go far enough IMO. They call out the oligarchs and financial interests on vaccines but don't relate the connection with the W H O dealings

Recent objective commentary for UKC readers - here in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/30/covid-vaccine-rush-could-ma...?

Current regs insist that a 'viable' vaccine should be 30% effective. The Guardian's concern is that the warp speed campaign will produce variants less effective.

Even at 30% effective - how could a vaccination campaign ever be argued as worthwhile - on an individual or group basis ?  

Easily.  It depends what 30% effective means, but, on an individual basis, if it prevents a mild, local epithelial infection in the upper airways becoming a serious systemic infection - that’s the difference between feeling a bit poorly and ending up in ITU.

On a population basis, reducing the proportion of the population capable of catching and transmitting the infection by a third would have a significant effect on the R value.

Hardly surprising that a growing number don't appear to be able to see clearly through the fog of strawmen and scaremongering; it must be pretty dark down those rabbit holes.

This is why you are getting such a hard time on here. It's your insistence there is some overarching controlling alliance of groups, with some sort of undefined agenda.

I haven't really got the time to watch a YouTube video, and I'm a bit critical of any outlet that relies on videos - rhetoric and advocacy in a 'good' presentation can paper over the cracks in logic that are more obvious in a written thesis.

But it's interesting that you agree with them - except when they don't match your pre-formed opinion - bias...?

FWIW it's quite clear that a pharmaceutical industry may make more money out of a vaccine for a chronic illness than a "cure", but there a an awful lot of people in the world - so there is a massive market for a good vaccine, with probable market positions for every vaccine that is produced. There may be the unsavoury position of richer countries being able to afford "better" vaccines, but thanks to charities and philanthropy (like the Gates foundation) there are a lot of people who will be paying to try and redress that. 

I appreciate that it would shatter your world view to see Gates on the side of"good" though...

Not just the Guardian's concerns. The concerns of the scientists that the Guardian quotes. And the concerns of the scientific and regulatory community - hence why there are the very public arguments and discussions about the processes through which vaccines need to be developed.

None of this is secret. None of this is a conspiracy.

And no-one is saying that a vaccine ISN'T the solution to this.

Edit to add.

It's another example of you trying to connect unconnected dots. I guess it could be the human desire to recognise patterns. I heard a good quote yesterday about conspiracy theories - "making the leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable".

This, plus a deep seated belief that the health care sector just wants to make money and doesn't actually want to make people well, but that the opposite is true for a whole crowd of cranks and shysters.

A very wise and experienced consultant gave me his take on Holistic/Alternative/Functional Medicine...when a treatment has been definitively proven to work it doesn't need some outlandish prefix, it's simply called "Medicine".

And no-one is saying that a vaccine ISN'T the solution to this.

No there are few left who will risk 'Bill Chill' and anti-vax speak. But Robert F Kennedy Jr did a good job on both counts in his talk to protesters in Berlin, just a few days ago

ps. He's a Democrat

I'm not an unreasonable anti-vax idiot...

but here's an anti-vax message I approve of...

and here's something tangential...

So what? It's hardly anything new to people who follow US politics and culture that the anti-vax movement in the US is most deeply rooted in two particular environments: religiously orthodox communities - particularly the Hasidim in New York and around there, and in lefty, leafy, wealthy Californian communities, Santa Monica and the like, where people are both very progressive (strongly Democrat) and still influenced by the legacy of New Age ideas from the 70s and 80s. 

Are you really that unquestioning of your sources? Or just the ones who disagree with your pre decided position?

Robert Kennedy Jr as a credible source?

From THREE years ago:-

 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorte...

One thing you would never do - is look for anti-vax support within BigScience - because it's all stitched up. Anyone who talks anti-vax is dis-credited - a heretic. So this is hardly surprising. But there - as a reminder - Richard Horton of the Lancet held out for 12yrs before retracting his anti-vax criticisms - Bravo!

Which is further how BG has built his security - the pyramid of support he has is formidable, so you and your confréres are pretty safe from a bumbly like me - in fact I still can't figure why you even bother with counter-argument :/

I would not for one minute imagine to dislodge you from your entrenched bias - it was just to provide evidence of my lack of bias - lockdown sceptical commentary comes from many quarters, not just far right.

Anyway, you haven't answered my question - you owe me now ! I thought you'd be smart enough to work out mine - if I'm not an influencer I'm obviously a contributor !

Except for a third option :/   

In this epoch anyone who has the courage to stand on a podium and criticise one of the biggest cover-ups of the last century - merits acclaim. The world's future is carried on the weight of these lies;

Bravo RFK !

But what about the 5G?

"It's all stitched up"?? You have a pretty screwed up idea of how science works.

When evidence is discovered  that demonstrates a problem with a vaccine it is flagged up, investigated and if confirmed - addressed. For example problems with vaccines made from attenuated viruses.

I'm presuming you are praising the Lancet for failing to retract Wakefield's autism paper linking Autism to vaccination for 12 years.  How on earth you can think it's praiseworthy when despite repeated studies, reviews and studies of studies there is NO link between autism and vaccination, and that paper and it's long term effects on the views on vaccinations by parents has probably been responsible for more harm to children across the world than any other single act.

The suggestion that vaccines are a conspiracy led by Bill Gates is laughable. 

The reason people like me bother discussing it with you is because your views, when they get to the anti-vax fringes of tin-foil hat land are actually harmful.

Allowing them to be accepted unchallenged is dangerous. This isn't a case where "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" or "we can agree to disagree". This is a case where a self-described bumbly, whose knowledge of virology, epidemiology, and seemingly current affairs is drawn from the outlier fringes of YouTube and agenda driven websites masquerading as objective, is trying to push a narrative that will harm people.

It's easy to just laugh at the 9/11 conspiracists. They didn't actually cause much harm but promoting an anti-scientific agenda in the middle of a global pandemic...? 

'The suggestion that vaccines are a conspiracy led by Bill Gates is laughable. '

According to his own account, he stopped taking an interest in poker - which he was good at, being a nerdy sort of bloke - because he was so rich that winning really didn't mean very much. That was back in the 90s. 

He and his wife seem extraordinarily well balanced, rational and empathetic individuals. Those attributes may well have contributed to how he became (for a while) the richest man in the world.  What do the conspiracy theorists think he's hiding. What more could he want?

One can only hope that the penny will eventually drop that those “speaking out” aren’t being discredited by any malicious organisation, they are doing a perfectly good job of discrediting themselves by spouting utter nonsense. 

It may have helped for some diseases - certainly not for flu - and most unlikely for coronaviruses. 

The attempt to black n white judgement is the problem - not vaccines themselves. research wasted millions on an HIV vaccine. Every disease has to be judged individually, every vaccine too - they're all different, carrying different risks and side-effects.

The same for all drugs. Just because one is proven to work you don't say 'drugs work' - do you ?!

No, I wouldn’t say “drugs work”. We’ve already had this conversation where I pointed out that the much vaunted Tamiflu turned out to be useless.

But that’s a million miles away from refusing to allow your kids the MMR vaccine “cos Bill Gates is  a paedo” and kicking up an enormous fuss over wearing masks “cos they’s muzzles innit”

Some drugs are ineffective. A vanishingly small minority may be harmful. Labelling all vaccines and the entire pharmaceutical industry as a plot against humanity is total idiocy.

There appears to me to be a growing situation where the lure of being a voice of 'truth' in valiant defiance of government, or in many cases intergovernmental, supposed narrative control, is becoming dare I say trendy. The people attracted to such a position are often not particularly influential themselves, nor do they usually seem particularly bright, and the lines of reasoning employed are generally extremely weak and lack credibility. But somehow, pointing this out seems to make such people entrench themselves further and disappear ever deeper into an inner world where only people 'like them' are talking 'truth' and everyone else - including the vast majority of eminent and highly respected scientists - are tarred with the same brush that's used to discredit politicians as well as anyone who's ever made any money. I don't have an answer as to how to rectify such obviously erroneous views in the minds of such people, but I do think it's one of the biggest challenges modern society faces right now, as the modern social media world seems to positively encourage people to immerse themselves in self-gratifying bubbles, even if such bubbles bear little in common with reality.

Oh get a grip.

Smallpox?

TB?

Polio?

"certainly not" for flu? So the yearly flu vaccinations for vulnerable categories are, let me guess... just an entirely unjustified money spinner for "big pharma"/ Bill Gates/ the Illuminati...

"Most unlikely" - what YouTube video are you basing that on?

Difficult, no guaranteed success? Yep, maybe. 

So why your apparent black n white judgement that vaccines aren't the answer.

Nope. Though you apparently are convinced that Hydroxychloroquine "must" be the answer to the exclusion of all other drugs, and apparently every "other" piece.of scientific research for some bizarre reason.

It's the logical inconsistencies in your thought processes that are so... interesting...

So who did this ?

Straight from the CCDH handbook. Well - you have your solutions ready - censor the internet, ridicule critics, and finally if they still don't listen - take an example from China & the CCP - digital surveillance will soon sort things out.

You have swallowed poison and will never be free of it.

You’ve been more mealy mouthed in recent pronouncements (after being repeatedly confronted with science and logic) but it’s abundantly clear where your sympathies lie.

it does help,to some degree, against Flu it just has the disadvantage that the flu is highly variable which means the vaccine has to change as well. If we get lucky then the vaccine is can be pretty effective at containing it for that year. However some years it doesnt go well and there is also the problem of producing enough of it hence why its targeted.

You seem to have reversed reality here. No one aside from the anti vaxxers have such a simplistic world view. Its pretty obvious that vaccines dont solve everything on the grounds that we dont have them for anything. Some just havent been found whereas others had candidates but the downsides were too high.

I do like how the woo merchants seamlessly believe this crap whilst often also simultaneously pushing claims about how a single effective cure has been found for cancer etc but big pharma are suppressing it since more money in treaments rather than cures.

Where available, eg high effectiveness and low side effects, vaccines provide both the best results for individuals (far better to feel crap for a couple of days after vaccination rather than be on drugs for months) and also financially in that a single jab is generally a lot cheaper than emergency treatment.

To take HIV yes there are highly effective treatments now but they are life long and generally not cheap (there are some possible permanent cures based around bone marrow transplants etc but not exactly cheap either and, I assume, damned unpleasant for the patient). If we could get a working vaccine it would massively improves peoples lives over time.

Tbf mate, it seems you have swallowed a whole barrel of bullshit....and I'm being kind here 😉

LOL.

Regarding censorship - you are posting your opinion regularly and openly. There is no risk of your door being knocked on, despite the harmful consequences of your beliefs.

The fact you may be part of a ridiculed minority doesn't strengthen your argument.

 It is interesting that every time you are specifically taken to task on the specific detail of your  position you resort to trying to paint yourself as some lone voice of truth.

Not that reasoning has any effect on your entrenched views, but I'll just point out that I haven't once advocated internet censorship, that's your fabrication from within your bubble. I merely proposed highlighting and labelling potentially dangerous ideas that could not be supported factually. Ridiculing I'm all for, when ridicule is due, which has nothing to do with whether people are being critical and everything to do with whether people are making sense. And your ultimate solution of digital surveillance, I'm really at a loss as to where you got that idea from at all, but then there seem to be quite a few ideas you appear to have embraced that don't seem to be supported by facts or rational judgement, so I'm not claiming to be surprised.

I don't think it's easy to laugh at anyone for that. It may seem unlikely to you but why should that result in ridicule? I felt pretty duped when I seen footage of WTC Building 7 collapsing after a few office fires. It's been clearly proven that it fell at freefall for over 2 seconds which can only happen if its entire support structure is blasted with high explosives at strategic points timed to precisely go off simultaneously. Why is that to be laughed at? You can't say science is correct on vaccinations and then laugh at it when science is used to prove WTC7 Building was a controlled demolition. 

youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc&

It's so blatantly obvious that it is a controlled demolition but I wouldn't laugh at someone who denies it because they can't cope with that fact. 

I re-state my opinions on vaccination again here as a reference point:

I am not against ALL vaccines for ALL people. Different vaccines are more or less effective, and some will have more or less risk of side-effects. Vaccines should be open to criticism. Let those who want them - have them. With appropriate education - and without loaded propoganda -people can make better choices.

Vaccination is topical in the pandemic because of strong suggestion that they will become obligatory - and this is my main point of objection.  

Science hasn't been used to "prove" that at all. The overwhelming scientific opinion, not to mention the various commissions disagree.

The conspiracy to take all the towers down would not only be a horrendously callous slaughter of the US own civilians, it would also require a huge logistical effort and multi- agency conspiracy. Without a single whistle blower.

And all for what? Even the conspiracy theorists disagree on the goal.

So yes, like holocaust deniers, I think ridicule is apt.

Edit to add:

"Looking" like a controlled demolition based on various snippets of video is very different from "being" a controlled demolition. No matter how many graphics you try and overlay on the footage.

Hahahahaha... 

Fair enough. But I believe it's fair to ask that you vaccinate your kids if you want to access public schooling, just like it's fair to ask that you restrain your kids from taking a dump while accessing public swimming baths.

I feel this is either a dishonest or an ill-educated argument.

It gives the impression that there are a number of good value reasons why vaccines are "bad". It plays on the "weakness" of science - no scientist will say this is "risk free" and we are all aware of, highly publicised and well documented, occasions where there have been harmful effects.

This position attempts to squeeze in that gap, to suggest that actually refusing a vaccination is a rational and we'll considered position.  

The reality is that, generally speaking, it isn't. It nearly always involves a failure to understand the reality of risk - vaccine Vs illness Vs consequences.

That being said I agree, compulsory vaccination is generally speaking not a particularly good way forward.

Yep. Shouldn't be obligatory. Seems reasonable that, like yellow fever, it might be compulsory for certain countries.  In the wider vaccination context I'd say it should be a key factor in attending schools, travel - eg certain airflights. Maybe even admission to crowded indoor venues...

Flu virus vaccines work well. They just need to be made to the correct strain and this takes considerable skill and a little luck to predict 

This is true in people, horses and dogs

Stop spreading falsities - one person believing this rubbish is too many.  

I didn't ask you about your voting record, I just passed comment on conspiracy rubbish you linked to on that thread last week.

You did say earlier

So no direct empathy with far right politics but happy to fish in those ponds when they support your "The Truth". The capitalisation of "The" and "Truth" is helpful as it helps flag up that whatever follows almost certainly isn't. That "technocracy.news" story you linked to was a fine example of both of these issues.

And if you are really that interested - I've only ever voted Labour in the UK and for the Green Party in Finland. But I'd rather suggest that my "entrenched biases" against crack-pottery and bullshit comes from decades of studying and researching in areas of sociology and politics, and now in later life teaching them. I did work for UN Environment Programme for about a year, so does that make an emeritus member of the New World Order?

I'm not talking about 'scienctific opinion' I'm talking about scientific fact. WTC7 building came down at freefall at all four corners for just over 2 seconds which can only happen using explosives and months of planning. NIST commission was a farce that denied freefall only to change their minds. 

Hang on that doesn't explain WTC7 building collapsing at freefall. 

Why jump to reasons before concluding the cause of WTC7 building collapse? 

So explain WTC7 Building collapse. 

The footage isn't overlaid. Careful scientific measurements have been applied by Architects and engineers for 911 truth which prove WTC7 fell at freefall, a fact NIST denied until it was proven by A&E for 911 truth and NIST were now backed into a corner so had to admit it. 

Leading experts in controlled demolitions when shown the footage but not told it was on 911 have stated WTC7 Building was a standard but good controlled demolition. 

It's obvious to anyone with sight. 

None of that is proof.

There are a group of scientists who, based on studies of the videos believe that the videos of the collapse of WTC 7 fall in a way that would be the case of it was subject to controlled.demolotion.

The fact that it looks like a controlled demolition doesn't prove anything other than it "looks" like a controlled demolition.

If we were to believe it was a controlled demolition, then the number of people involved in the preparation, the planning and the activation of the demolition would be huge.  And not a single one has whistleblown or leaked.

The motive? Nobody really agrees on why that degree of damage and death needed to be carried out.

You're missing the big picture, what you should be by asking is why they needed to take down WTC7. But you're not interested in the actual truth. 

I wouldn't invest too much time trying to have a serious debate with Pefa. She seems to have a penchant for going against whatever anyone else is saying regardless of facts or reasoning. 

Anyone working for UN or the other BIG global pushes, would have had to have some sympathy with their objectives - just to take the job on; however you did only stay for a year - so that alone could not be conclusive.

And your stated support for Labour also inconclusive. There are two important factions within Labour; tell us more ?

Sooo reasonable - surely everyone will see the sense !

Should not be obligatory - 'crocodile tears' - unless you want to carry on living

I'll ask your question - Why and how ? whats the official version ? No plane crashed into WTC7 did it ?

Isnt the claim it was to destroy some documents held in the FBI offices there? Personally I would have left it standing and just popped in with a shredder rather than spending a week or so wiring the place up with explosives but thats just me being laxy I guess.

Since you ask:

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-invest...

Yep. Sometimes individual freedoms (to make dumb decisions and do stupid things) are outweighed by the responsibility of individuals to the rest of society.  That's agreed in all Human Rights law.

Where we go one, we go all! But best to say you don't understand; don't let Them know that you know The Truth! 

UKC forums has started to look a lot like a weird cross between 4chan and reddit of late.

Anime soft porn, anti-vaxxers, 911 conspiracy peddelers .... all out in the open pushing their nasty agendas.  

I had no idea we had real live anti-vaxxers and 911 conspiracy peddelers in the UKC forums.  Learn something new every day.

UKC has entered the realms of the disinformation wars.

You are either very naively fair minded, or you are up to something...

This is what you should say about Far Right politics: "I hate Far Right politics with every fibre of my being."

Of course no plane crashed into WTC7, it was space lasers. The WHO kept the blueprints for vaccine population control in the building and they had to be destroyed to prevent the truth coming out.

At least the anime was climbing related!

No, the clue's in the name.  The second part beginning with Capital S.

I've tried to listen to your more reasonable arguments, even when they are misconceived, but you are on to a loser with this one.  Vaccination, and medical immunology generally, is one of the big successes of modern science.  There's a mountain of incontrovertible data, literally millions of lives saved.

Its very success is what allows the ignorant and politically motivated to deny its importance.  When I was a kid, every High Street had a charity collecting box depicting a crippled child wearing conspicuous leg calipers.  When did you last meet anyone who has been disabled by polio?  Or disfigured by smallpox?  And it's not just old-fashioned diseases that you, in your privileged position, have barely heard of.  The current vaccination campaign against human papilloma virus has the potential to virtually eliminate cervical cancer. 

I would argue that, as an individual, you have a right to do pretty much anything you like that doesn't harm anyone else, but as a member of a society you also have an obligation to contribute to the common good. 

Failing to be vaccinated for no good reason other than self-righteousness adherence to an absolute fallacy is both to shirk your responsibility to help others and to risk actively harming them.  Get over yourself.

Why do 'they' always believe all of the conspiracy theories?  Surely if they really were looking at the 'facts' then they would come to a different conclusion to the rest of the idiots on at least a couple of the subjects.  But no, you can guarantee that if they are anti-vax, then they are 9/11 truthers.

Do I dare ask about Pizzagate?

You missed the great UKC debates on 9/11 about 15 or 16 years ago then. Those were the days!

Bit nasty to dismiss everything someone says because you disagree with it don't you think? You really are on the defensive right away which means I'm discussing something that you really don't want to know about. 

I know of a couple of people who always said 911 was an inside job and I dismissed the idea because it's too big a leap to kill your own people(you should take note I dismiss the idea not the person) then a few years ago one day on fb I seen a clip of a building come down in a standard controlled demolition just like all the others but after it you very told it was a WTC building and it happened on 911. But that's obviously a controlled demolition and I don't remember hearing about this building at all I thought.

Now I'm not inerested in speculation or motive I plainly want to know why it was a controlled demolition and NIST 's inadequate reasons are unscientific.

Now let's drop all the surrounding matters and discuss how a building with a floor plan the size of a football field can fall practically symmetrically (4 corners) for over 2 seconds at freefall speed. Freefall in this case means there is nothing below at all to support it. 

Not just that but often they can believe in conspiracy theories that contradict each other.

Wrong.  On both counts.  The problem with flu is that it has the potential for quite a lot of antigenic variation (try googling some reputable sources on influenza virus / antigenic drift/shift /haemagglutinin / neuraminidase - it's basic undergraduate stuff).  The vaccine works on the strain against which it was raised.  Every year, there are big meetings at WHO, and CDC looking at the best data available and making educated guesses (a year ahead) about what the picture in the Northern and Southern hemispheres will be the following winter, in time for the evil Big Pharma to make the right vaccines targeting the three or four most likely strains. 

https://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/virus/recommendations/en/

I've not yet seen anything suggesting SARS-CoV-2 has anything like the antigenic variability of influenza virus.  In fact it seems fairly stable genetically.  There are other challenges, but my feeling is these will be related to the way in which the virus damages the wide range of cells it can infect and whether we are vaccinating in the right way.  If I were to speculate wildly, I would guess that vaccines given by injection might be good at preventing serious illness but not necessarily always be able prevent infection completely.  If so, this would relegate SARS-CoV-2 effectively to just being one of the several coronaviruses that can cause winter colds, and that's still absolutely worth doing.  Obviously.   

Or maybe they have looked at it and concluded, correctly, it is bollocks.

Have you ever seen how much effort goes into a controlled demolition? Look up the youtube videos which include not just the blowing up bit but the setup. There are wires and explosives everywhere which is fine in a empty building but would might raise a few health and safety concerns in an office block and also a few suspicions from those FBI agents.

Also why would they make it look like a controlled demolition? Controlled demolitions is for when you dont want to trash the entire neighbourhood. Why not just blow it up in a way that didnt look controlled? Almost certainly be easier and not give the game away.

Thanks for validating my previous post.

I want to believe it was done by some carpets catching fire just like we all do. 

The truth is all that matters so how do you work that out? 

How so?

When i show facts and reasoning you stated I go against and you provide nothing but slander. 

Yes ... this is an excellent point La benya!!

If they were actually looking for the "The Truth", then it's reasonable to assume that there would a mean distribution of some sort in the conspiracies they believe in - but no!!   There is definitely a positive correlation between being an anti-vaxer and believing that 911 was a hoax.  The real question is though - in which direction is the causality???  Does a belief that 911 was a hoax cause you to avoid getting yourself vaccinated OR does the lack vaccination cause you to believe 911 was a hoax??  

My hypothesis:  It's the latter.

Fascinating!!!!!!

PhD in the waiting right there for someone who wants it.

This is what happens if your default setting is to be against everything, rather than for anything.  That was Corbyn's basic problem too.  Both Corbyns actually. 

Why not choose to believe it had something to do with the unusual event of the planned impact of two f*cking great aircraft causing unprecedented local conditions that were outside the parameters of any modelling that might have been done?

Just because the unexpected happens in a very unusual situation doesn't mean that it was caused by something even more unlikely.      

Office fires are common occurances that don't lead to symmetrical freefall speeds in the structures where they burn for a lot longer than the small fires in WTC7. 

Im only interested in the facts because I want to understand what happened and not just dismiss it. I mean what if it is as Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth call 'the smoking gun" and it was an inside job? We should ignore that? 

Horse sh1t Pefa ... you're openly trolling and misrepresenting the facts now.

911 was no "commnon occurance office fire" and to suggest it was is simply outright lying.

I mean what if it is as Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth call 'the smoking gun" and it was an inside job? We should ignore that? 

Yes.  In fact, ignore anyone who gives Truth a capital T.

How is it possible to be against everything? 

Clearly nonsense. 

It get a capital T because its in a title, this may help you-

Words to Capitalize in a Title

Capitalize the first word, the last word, and all nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and subordinating conjunctions.

Lowercase all articles, (short) prepositions, and coordinating conjunctions.

https://titlecaseconverter.com › word...

Words to Capitalize in a Title – Title Case Converter

Well I'm going by the explanation provided by NIST so it is they you should be calling trolls. No? 

Yes, I did get that.  It was a kind of joke, but true nonetheless.

What did the Architects and Engineers Who Examined the Footage and Debris and Didn't Feel the Need for an Implausible Alternative Paranoid Explanation for 9/11 say?

Ugh. American capitalisation is so unpleasant and so unnecessary. This is an excellent example to demonstrate that not everything that you read on the internet is equally applicable everywhere. American capitalisation may be de rigeur in the USA and some other countries, but that doesn't mean it is applicable here. Few UK-based publications follow these rules, and thank goodness for that. 

So the internet is not 100% reliable. Choose your sources as you see fit, but never forget that infallibilities are scattered on the internet like confetti. Just because a website uses a capital T doesn't mean it really is the truth.  

So far as I can see only pefa & I are resisting system stories in this thread. Pefa is criticising 911 but has never mentioned vaccines. I am criticising vaccines but have never criticised 911 - I did ask a question concerning it.

So - it is *you* and a posse of others here who are so keen to join the dots - and see simplistically - that anyone who disagrees on just one point - must disagree on all; you then further use this scenario to black protesters with every possible bad image you can think of - every conspiracy story, every extreme political viewpoint.

The problem is yours if you cannot imagine how this could be otherwise.  

I am missing something here. If I choose to leave myself open to a disease by not being vaccinated, how does that threaten the security of others who willingly protect themselves - shielded after vaccination ? 

So, just to clarify, your position in 9/11 is the same as the generally accepted account - hijackers, two planes, towers collapsed, many dead? 

Google "herd immunity" and the consequences of failing to vaccinate.

I may be missing something here but I would have hoped you had carried out at least some basic research on viruses and vaccination before running down rabbit holes and propagating this nonsense.

There is a reason people actually study this stuff. And by study I don't mean selectively Google and chase your own confirmation biases.

I wasn't there, so any idea I have would be just belief - just as it is it is for you. I have read evidence on both sides but have no final opinion.

edit: even if right now I confessed to 911 conspiracy belief - that would be too late: la Benya, StuPoo2 & dave garnett have all indulged in this smirking and smearing - which illustrates their narrow-mindedness - but not infrequent amon many others here

Yes, you are missing something. Some people are not able to be vaccinated due to pre existing health problems, allergies, age. They are reliant on others being vaccinated to bring about herd immunity. 

So basically, the already vulnerable, who will also be most likely to become seriously ill, often can’t be vaccinated. If enough people refuse vaccinations, it is these people who unwillingly pay the ultimate price for the unsubstantiated nonsense you insist on spreading. 

It has been conclusively measured by A&E for 911 Truth to prove freefall, NIST were forced to agree so that is not 'it looks like', that is 'it is', which then leads on to how can a building that size fall symmetrically at freefall speed for over 2 seconds as if there was nothing beneath it. And from ordinary office and building equipment catching fire when this doesn't happen in many other buildings that fire rages for longer. 

In fact WTC 5 building was right next to the twin towers so was severely damaged and fires raged there for longer than WTC7 but it didn't collapse. 

Stick to the facts before speculation. 

Again we first need to establish why the building collapsed before even looking for a motive because if it can be shown to have been office fires or a diesel tank blowing  then there is no need to find a motive as the case is closed on that front. 

Because some people are unable to be vaccinated and unfortunately, pretty much by definition, this includes the most high risk groups. Plenty of other cases as well since, despite your insinuations otherwise, the medical authorities are well aware of the limitations and risks of vaccines.

As Off-Duty says this really is basic level stuff so it is fascinating that you either dont know this or are pretending you dont.

Well, let's see.  Some people can't be vaccinated for medical reasons (they are immunosuppressed, for instance).   The vaccine may not be 100% effective, so having the infection active in the population will always pose extra risk, especially for those already vulnerable.  By needlessly exposing yourself to infection, you put unnecessary burden on the health service at a time when it is might already at capacity.

Your very question is predicated on selfishness.  What's so special about you that you aren't prepared to do your bit?  Of course, you are less likely to have to face up to the consequences of becoming infected yourself because others have been more responsible and helped establish herd immunity.  Which makes you hypocrite and a freeloader. 

Ah yes well if such an unbiased authority as that have spoken who can disagree. In related news Mondite is a Genius Truth group have concluded I am a genius. I thank them for their insight and for any who dare disagree please note the "Truth" in the group name. You cant argue with that.

Okay. So can you answer the two simple questions.

How did all the people in the building not notice all the wires and suspicious boxes being placed around the place. You dont think an FBI agent or two might have asked "so why are you sticking all this stuff next to the load bearing walls" whilst casually resting their hand on their pistol?

Why bother making it look like a controlled demolition. Why not just let it collapse any which way?

I'm not sure if this is "false balance" or "false equivalence" either way it's a position you seem to continually find yourself in, either unintentionally or maliciously.

Regardless, I don't think presenting your opinion of 9/11 as being "Hmm, I'm just not sure ..." does much, if anything, to repudiate La Benya's point.

Lol They are called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth so I call them Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, so what is there to discuss? Nothing. 

Then we must encourage herd immunity which comes naturally through circulation of this virus - and the 3 or 4 which pop up to threaten humanity each year.

And we're back to food industry reform. Sugar and other inputs in the national diet contribute to weakened immunity - specifically in respect of sars2, and NCDs in general. Outside of age-vulnerable - hospital admissions halved by dietary reforms.

If the vaccine takes 18months to prepare, *any* resistance to change this basic element will undermine the alleged motive to save lives - during the development phase. figure the stats for a 20% mortality virus.

I didn't start this thread for it to become a platform for Truthers... They aren't the problem. It's the more subtle manipulation that is concerning.

Have you read any history? Look at the devastation to societies which occured whilst building "herd immunity".

Immunity can come at a high cost in lives and that is if it does happen which isnt guaranteed. Smallpox killed several hundred thousand a year in 18th century Europe and left many others permanently disfigured.

We never got herd immunity from it so it would still be killing away without a vaccine.

eh?

In your own post you wrote-

"I'll ask your question - Why and how ? whats the official version ? No plane crashed into WTC7 did it ?"

So just to clarify- you don't think there was a conspiracy on 9/11 and the official narrative is the truth?

What are your thoughts on pizzagate?

Can you explain the relevance of wtc7 being taken down by a controlled demolition?

The arguments I've seen go along the lines of 'If the building was blown up, then no planes hit the twin towers. 911, was an inside job.' The logic being, that it normally takes several days to wire up a building to drop in its own foot print.

Does it make any difference if the building housed sensitive information and someone ordered it to be taken down?

Natural herd immunity.  Indeed that worked for the Plague- only took 40% of the population of Europe to die from it to reach herd immunity.  Your way is killing those humans unable to adapt to the virus and leaving those that can healthy. The science way is getting all those who are able to adapt, to do so by artificial means, so those that cannot, don't die as much.

Your mental gymnastics is quite impressive I must say.

So either you haven't researched herd immunity (which you appeared to not to have heard of in your previous post) or you have researched it - judging by this post. 

Pretty indicative of a bad faith argument to me, though I'd err in your favour and suggest that you are just throwing out a term you still don't understand.

As pointed out, you haven't considered the hundreds of thousands of deaths just in the UK to gain sufficient coverage for herd immunity.

Lethality that can be avoided by vaccination.

This is just more "anti sugar" woo. NCDs cover a vast array of illnesses many utterly irrelevant to diet. Yes, it would be better for everyone if we were healthier, did more exercise and weren't obese, or smokers, but this is all a rather unpleasant "otherism" - the vulnerable have brought it in themselves. Not sure how a cancer sufferer would feel about being told their NCD was down to their poor dietary choices.

Don't even understand what point you're trying to push here. Should we have a 20% mortality virus (leaving aside all the various epidemiological reasons why this spreading rampantly is unlikely) - then the sort of lockdown we'd see would be on an entirely different scale, and worrying about diet would be at the bottom of the list.

For the record I am not anti vaccination or anti 5G. 

That’s nice. We’ll put your medal in the post for you. 

A group of completely independent scientists, engineers and architects are biased away from science? Even when NIST use their data? so that makes NIST biased to? 

Why would it collapse at all ? And as I said why speculate to motivation and perpetrators before you know how the crime was committed? There is no point in speculation until it is beyond doubt that it could only have been brought down by  a pre-planned system of explosive charges. 

I really don’t believe that you are so shortsighted that you can’t see the holes in that idea. You’ve either given it literally no thought at all and are just trotting out catch phrases, or you are deliberately omitting, distorting, and lying to suit your own agenda. 

What is bollocks? 

Yes I've been over this argument on here not too long ago and on other places so I'm well aware of the process of controlled demolition to some degree. OK I'll take your bait for the sake of debating something, so what if the wiring and charges fir detonation were done on the nightshift when the building was emptied or on the holidays or under cover during the day as rewiring work in the guts of the building out of sight? 

Because they made a wrong decision? How can I know. 

Good job they were unaffected by the fires.

You do realise that “independent” and “biased” are in no way mutually exclusive, right? 

(Although one could argue that by virtue of being in a group, they are, by definition, not independent.)

Either way, independent doesn’t mean infallible. It just means independent. Independent has no relationship with competence, knowledge, reliability. It just means independent. Independent doesn’t mean unbiased. It just means independent.

But then again, I’m even more independent than them - not even in a vaguely related industry. Does that mean my theory would trump theirs? 

Hang on, I've been more than fair with you, on this and other threads.  What you interpret as smirking is up to you, but smearing?  To me, that involves saying or implying something derogatory that isn't true.  Would you care to give an example?

If open-mindedness is gullibly accepting any old nonsensical rubbish I read on the internet, then mark me down as narrow-minded.  I'm perfectly prepared to consider the possible, even the improbable and the unpopular, but I draw the line at the impossible and, especially, the deliberately misleading. 

I'm very surprised you would ask that because if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition which would take many months to prepare then why was it rigged at that time? And why was it brought down at that time? And if it was rigged to be blown up which would require planning over many months then what about the twin towers? We're they also rigged? Planes hit the twin towers obviously but was that a covering reason to hide a total destruction?

Also tell me how a small block on top of a much larger block can completely destroy that much larger block at near freefall speed when equal forces cancel each other out? The top 12 floors on one of the twin towers that collapsed and looked like a pile driver effect should have at most destroyed the 12 floors below then come to a stop using Newton's third law of motion which states -

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This is how misunderstanding actual science, transforms into believing nonsense.  You've taken a legitimate scientific theory, misused it and come to the wrong conclusion.

Can you please show me your working as to how the forces are equal?

What about the additional mass from the first 11 floors that have been destroyed?  What about the deformation of structural beams during the initial loading, making the 'force' required to hold up those 12 floors a moot point.  What about the added force created by the acceleration of the mass?  You're ignorant.  You just don't realise you're ignorant.

I realize that the science speaks for itself. 

Conspiracy theory - "leaping from the undeniable to the unbelievable".

Yep. The NIST report is quite clear. Oh, sorry you don't mean THAT science, just the "science" that supports your theory.

It is painfully ironic.  Using the name of 'science' when it suits.

I can't quite tell if you, LeeWood, are a proper sleeper troll (account apparently created 06') or you're getting a rough ride in the world of internet chat rooms perhaps because you're new to them.  I suspect the latter.

You're getting mocked both because its an effective way to deal with a troll (if you are one) and an effective way to make sure your dangerous ideas about heard immunity don't take hold and are instead crowded out of mainstream conversation.

It's not nice to come onto a public forum and make the case for killing millions by adopting a policy of herd immunity.  You're going to get a hard time, in a moderate forum like UKC, for views like that.  

The idea of building something, with an eye on how you'd bring it down is not new. I'd point you in the direction of Switzerland. They have some experience in these matters.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-switzerland-camouflaged-its-ready-to-explode-ar...

The wtc7 building had some extensive internal alterations. It is not beyond reason to consider that the design envelope had been pushed to breaking by the events of the day.

What about the pentagon? A missile or another plane? How about the one that came down in a field? Brave passengers or shot down?

If there was a conspiracy, then perhaps flight 93 was likely to have been shot down. However, there appears to be recordings of phone conversations and corroborating evidence that it was the passengers. Could it be faked? Possibly. But in order to protect the pilot and chain of command, who possibly prevented a bigger tragedy.

Just the other day, two fighters had to intercept an easyjet flight, because of a suspicious package onboard.. 

Have you hammered in a nail? If you put a static 10kg weight on a nail, it wont embed very far. If you hit with 5kg, for a total force of 10kg, it will go in much further. Its not an equal force, there is a shock loading element. The falling floors would have accelerated towards terminal velocity whilst in free fall. But then again, neither of us are architects, so we're probably talking b0leaux.

I can understand that the 'they' might have wanted a pretext for a never ending war on terror. I don't think there was the level of competence, or the level of secrecy after the event in the years that followed. Many of the people involved wouldn't be able to live with that on their conscience. The few that could, wouldn't be able to direct the number of minions required to pull off such an event, without the minions working out what they had been involved in. Much simpler to say 'you've got WMD'. (We know because we sold them to you.)

Why would 'they' need to hit both towers and the Pentagon if all 'they' wanted to do was destroy a different building? 

Even that was screwed up since surely if you want to pick a fight with Iraq you would make sure some of the evidence points there instead of at a bunch of Saudis hiding in Afghanistan.

Come on everybody, I've almost won!

https://bingobaker.com/view/3377226

I've a number of conspiracists about that, and I've always been surprised at their inability to come up with any kind of answer. 

https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-cen...

The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) has formally filed a Request for Correction with the NIST following a new and detailed four-year analysis by a team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).

From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions,” said Walter.

The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support.

Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on “science and engineering” and accept that controlled demolition is a plausible cause.

The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were,” says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study.

“Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.”

Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building.

The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning.

You might think that someone posting on a climbing website might have practical experience of the difference between static and dynamic loads...

Thanks but the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner-

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers.“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Now you must admit that Newton's third law of motion is correct and that equal forces cancel each other out.The weight of the 12 floors above the plane impact looked as if they fell straight downwards onto the other 98 floors. They fell at 64% of freefall speed for 4 seconds and at no point was there a reduction in speed that would happen when it met the 98 floors below. If you hit that hammer on a nail the hammers velocity will slow at the point of impact. So why didn't that happen?

BTW when asked NIST have no explanation why that happened. Explosives do explain it though. 

Who says all they wanted to do was destroy one building? I didn't. 

science has changed sides on many occasions during the pandemic

Real science & Commercial science

Yours (collectively) too. No-one has been able to explain why not take known preventative measures - in anticipation of the 18+ months vaccine research delay. 'Your' refusal to recognise this is killing people. 

The sad truth for the UK - is that it has been recognised - but will not be acted on until 2025. If we average 3-4 new viruses annually thats a lot of virus-years to risk. 

The forces are equal when the building is in tact. It stays stationary. A force acts on the upper 12 floors and causes them to accelerate. Unequal forces. They they hit the rest of the building (setting aside the fact that they were never really a separate entity) with their force=mass x acceleration. What force do you think is equal to that? The force that was holding them up in the first place? Clearly not.

It's silly. You're being silly. Is it intentional just for a laugh or are you genuinely unable to see the point? 

Yep. Science changes advice as more is discovered about what works, what doesn't work and what the virus is doing. That's the beauty of science.

Your position has remained pretty resolute though. Almost as if you aren't prepared to change your opinion, whatever the evidence...

So... Your tactic is to say something and ignore when someone counters it. Interesting. 

Just to be clear. When you said herd immunity without vaccine you meant the plague model of alot of the population dying to achieve it? 

Masks, social distancing, lockdowns, track and trace, travel corridoors, hand sanitisation. 

Apart from those you mean? Or do you just mean things that "you" think make a difference like hydroxychloroquine and low sugar diets.

Clearly - each vaccine has a delay of research and production. For sars2 we're optomistically expecting 12 months, for many others it has taken much longer.

If measures can be taken to reduce mortality before a vaccine arrives clearly this is more important than waiting for a vaccine

Masks: little value

Social Distancing: good idea

Lockdown: too late too long

testing: unreliable

Travel Corridore: too late

Hand cleaning: always a good idea but no-one is pushing it now ???

Cutting ultra processed food has well qualified backing

HCQ: thanks for reminding me - I'll check out latest developments

Herein lies the problem with your posts. Your "facts" are generally opinions, admittedly sometimes from other sources, which are being presented in a manner suggesting that they are irrefutable evidence. 

Your reasoning is, frankly, bizarre. Rather than follow a balance of probability approach you immediately assume the most unlikely, most conspiratorial and sinister explanations for any given scenario. 

It's a shame that your debating skills are misdirected to crackpot ideas as you'll never be taken seriously by the majority of forum users. I dare say with level headed arguments you would make an impassioned speaker at the dispatch box.

Which leaves me to conclude you are New Labour, Labour Right or Blairite - however you want to name it. I think you have a lot of mates on here too. 

Ah, there’s a clever little turn of phrase, although I suspect a very dishonest one. Previously you were arguing against vaccination programmes full stop, now you are framing your position as just wanting to also work on other partial measures in the meantime (which is already happening, despite your claims. Are you seriously looking at the world today and thinking “well nothing has changed at all in response to this virus”?)

If you are going to promote an anti-vax agenda, at least be honest and transparent about it. Don’t dress it up as “while we wait...” to conceal your actual narrative and try to dupe people into getting on side. 

Apparently, there is unreleased video footage of events in the vicinity of WTC7 just after its collapse.
On it, there is a suspicious looking vehicle. US intelligence have said that it is a highly specialised off road vehicle with devices purpose built to scale high vertical surfaces. A visiting British Officer said that it looked like an "Old school Land Rover carrying some ladders'.
The audio file has been cleaned up and and voices, etc. analysed. Most of it appears to be in some strange language that no one can understand and it is assumed that it is an Arabic dialect that no one in the West is aware of.   However and somewhat strangely, there appears to be one brief comment in English. It doesn't make much sense though, as it sounds like they're saying: "Did You Like That"?
Both the vehicle and mystery talker have still not been found...

What's the difference between them? 

Don't you live in France? Who do you vote for there?

Indeed they are. Office fires fueled by - as Dave Garnett so pithily put it - "two f*cking great aircraft causing unprecedented local conditions" are less common, to the point of irreproducibility

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers.“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

For starters the building was designed to withstand an airplane impact so it would stay completely intact under that event as I pointed out above. Now even if we set that aside for one moment you are suggesting the opposing force of 98 floors is less than an opposing force of 12 floors and an acceleration created by a few floors collapsing? This goes against Newton's third law of motion as they are clearly not equal in any way since the 12 collapsing floors would hit those below crushing both as it went each cancelling out the other until it came to a stop after a dozen or so floors due to the overwhelming opposing force below. That impact deceleration is not observed. 

I understand your feelings I genuinely do as I didn't want to believe it either. 

That is just another attempted character assassination on myself for showing the science and facts behind a subject you cannot face up to,which I understand.I went for about 17 years after 911 thinking the same as you so was that 'crackpot' to or is it only crackpot when you decide it is? I mean you have provided zero to this debate other than to attack one debater which is very telling. 

Outright Lie - i expected better from you. Let those who want the vaccine have it.

In general vaccination IS dangerous because it encourages people NOT to prevent. prevention (where possible) is always better.

The problem with current pandemic politics - it is all too apparent that *for no just reason* they steer us towards an un-necessary vaccination campaign. Too much fear, too much propaganda and not enough Real science.

And frankly - you need to be aware of this 30% effective phenomena - which is not a whole lot to go on for not a whole lot of people.

Quote: Some media reports have speculated that this year’s flu shot will only be about 10% effective for Americans, based on results seen in Australia during its flu season. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it expects this year’s effectiveness rate to be closer to last year’s number, between 32% and 39%.

https://qz.com/1180874/the-flu-vaccine-is-only-about-30-effective-but-you-s...

Please. Please go and talk to someone with a degree in maths or physic or engineering and ask them to explain the laws of motion and how forces work. 

This ill-informed posting is starting to hurt my brain.

You appear to be desperately googling to support your position, which despite your denials is clearly anti-vax.

As I've mentioned early you are trying to squeeze in to the gap that science creates by allowing uncertainty. A scientist is never going to say "no risk". In that gap you are then generating false equivalences to suggest that you have some sort of "reasonable" argument. 

That isn't helped by your woeful lack of knowledge, your refusal to address any substantive criticism of the actual content of your posts and your continual grasping at utterly unconnected points to attempt to link disparate data to bolster what is basically a conspiracy theory. "The leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable".

There is a reason people study this stuff at university. There is a reason it is researched - and by research I don't mean googling by the ill-informed, I mean reviewing peer reviewed journals, publishing peer-reviewed papers, and conducting peer-reviewed experiments. Over years. As a full time job.

As to some of the specific point in this post.

1) Why quote a 2 year old article? 

2)"In general vaccination IS dangerous because it encourages people NOT to prevent. prevention (where possible) is always better." Nonsense. Polio. Smallpox. Measles. HPV. 

​​​​​​I mean, I don't even know where to begin with this statement. It's literally false.

3)"The problem with current pandemic politics - it is all too apparent that *for no just reason* "

I'm glad you've highlighted it as "your words" - because again - utter bollocks. A highly infectious virus that is lethal. Your proposal - some sort of f@@king diet? Jesus.

4)"They steer us towards an un-necessary vaccination campaign."

"They" - the shadowy illuminati again. FFS. "Un-necessary vaccination" - we haven't even produced a vaccine yet. Already you've decided it's pointless for "reasons" that you've yet to translate into actual robust points.

5)"Too much fear, too much propaganda and not enough Real science.".

With this stream of half-truths, misunderstood science, misquotes, and linking unrelated points, you are definitely correct there.  Oh, you weren't referring to your posts ...?

6)"And frankly - you need to be aware of this 30% effective phenomena - which is not a whole lot to go on for not a whole lot of people."

Again. FFS. 30% effectiveness is a huge number of people who are NOT dead. I believe dexamethasone has improved the survival rate of hospitalised patients by about 30%. Let's not use it, because it's not a lot to go on for not a whole lot of people.

A GCSE in Physics would be more than sufficient.

The Titanic was deigned to be unsinkable. That didn't work very well. You shouldn't overlook the possibility that the design didn't live up to its promise. 

What happens when you apply Newton's Second Law?

Not worth the skin wear incurred on your typing fingers. You're arguing a point with someone who still insists that the Germans killed 22,000 Poles at Katyn.

Despite the Germans and Polish as well as a variety of forensic archeologists all saying it was the Russians.

Oh, and the Russians say it was them too.

But Pefa knows best, cos Google.

FFS

I know. I'm just interested in her ability to come up with a reply that lives within the bounds of physics. 

Fred Dibnah has been suspiciously quiet on the matter.

Do you think there's the faintest possibility of any this 'unreleased video footage', cleaned-up audio file, visiting British Officer, old school Land Rover with 'devices purpose built to scale high vertical surfaces' (ladders, apparently!), or mysterious Arabs being anything other than complete fantasy?  

Nobody is denying that most people could make a material improvement to their health by eating less highly-processed food thereby cutting their salt and sugar intake.  We nearly all eat too much of these and they are bad for us.  No question.  Linked to hypertension and obesity, both of which clearly correlate with poor outcomes in COVID-19 (and many other things).

However, telling someone in ITU that they should eat better and take more exercise is probably not helpful.  Preventative medicine needs to happen before people become sick, not afterwards. 

I've already done that above showing that 12 floors cannot destroy 98 floors below, it's very straightforward which is why the folk at NIST who I presume have more than a GCSE in Physics between them won't go into it. Basically because they know it can't happen without the use of pre-placed explosive charges.

So two iconic state of the art buildings designed and built in 70s New York to safely withstand hurricane winds, explosions and a passenger airline flying into it collapse in the latter situation even though it is impossible without a massive pre-planned explosive system. 

No, its very far from being straightforward. The idea that a complex situation such as the collision of aircraft loaded with highly flammable fuel can be modelled simply using Newton's Third Law is gibberish of the highest order. 

Nothing to add to the debate on 911 other than attacking me then? Fair enough,you stick to what you can do. 

You are basically saying that it is beyond architects to design buildings that safeguard against a plane flying into them. How do you come to that conclusion? And you think physics laws don't apply in that situation.

No, I'm not saying that. Where do you think I did say that? 

To give you credit, you come across well read and well-studied on Soviet/communist history - even if that view might be on one particular side.

I can imagine your frustration when you get embroiled in yet another argument on communism and are faced with regurgitated third hand knowledge based on Google.

Now imagine how degree educated physicists and qualified engineers feel when faced with an argument about 9/11 based on regurgitating a Truther website and attempting to demonstrate a practical application and understanding of Newton's laws....

That's because he was killed by the CIA, along with the 350 demolition experts who rigged both towers with explosives without anyone noticing.

No you claim it is impossible which is not the same thing at all.

They were designed in the 60s.

With regards to the design to handle a passenger jet the engineers said they considered it however it was for a relatively low speed collision from a 707 or similar. Not a 767 which is larger, carries more fuel and was moving a lot faster. They didnt have access to the modelling technology either to really evaluate the risk.

Its more the structural engineers who would have to do that whilst dealing with whatever fantasy the architect wants.

It is also a balancing act between the probability of it happening and the implications in both cost and usability of making it safe.  If you want something completely plane proof you end up with something like Saint-Nazaire submarine base which has a few downsides to it. Anything less is a compromise based on the risk assessment. Something like an Airbus 380 hitting at speed will do a lot of damage.

But no one had actually flown a fully loaded and accelerating passenger plane, with full tanks, into a building like those. They would have modeled a plane strike, but there would be several variables that would have to be educated guesses. There would also be other assumptions made. They wouldn't model the strike on every floor, the strike may have been horizontal, not at an angle, fire suppression systems may have been presumed to work etc etc.

WRONG! Fred never used explosives. Clearly, you are leading us up the garden path.

Fred would have cut through the supporting columns, replacing them with blocks of wood. When the fire burnt through them, the building would come down. There would be no explosive residue, no forensics. It's all there, if you do your research and watch his vids. Join the dots.

I’m afraid not. Pefa was entirely unaware who Eric Hobsbawn and Robert Service were. The depth of her knowledge base isn’t very deep at all

A casual interest in history makes it abundantly clear that it doesnt prevent epidemics wiping out large numbers of people though.

You realise that you have moved away from a disagreement between scientists to a straightforward allegation that NIST are actively part of a conspiracy. 

Thanks and the same back to you on matters of British Law and policing as we all defer to you on these subjects. 

' Regurgitating',if by that you mean it was a long time ago then yes I agree but you were the one who raised this matter in the first place not I.

A 'truther website', has the ring of a reptile space aliens with lasers website about it which is perhaps why you chose that term over 3000 independent Architects and Engineers website. So imagine how the highly qualified and respected scientists, architects and engineers whose scientific work on this matter I have been ' regurgitating' on here must feel when some people are so in denial of the actual proven science that all they can do is resort to name calling or dismissal. Although the proportion of Americans who think it was an inside job is very high there are many people who still keep their head in the sand. 

And how did they influence the USSR between 1917 and 1991?

No this is a deflection tactic because your 911 debate is lost, let's stick to the subject at hand and not deflect onto Katyn or some Oxbridge propagandists. 

Well they do have "Truth" in their title so it isnt exactly unreasonable to call them truthers.

What about all the others who disagree with them? Why are these the ones we should listen to?

Off the top of my head why does NIST's investigation of the twin towers stop at the point of collapse? Why did they deny freefall speed of WTC7 building when A&E911T told them it did collapse at freefall? Why was their initial investigation branded a whitewash even by a member of that initial commission? Why do they completely ignore any investigation into the use of explosives on all 911 collapses? There are tons more stuff I can dig up but I'm busy atm. 

I'm sure I won't change your opinion on this, however here is a resource which supports everyone else's point of view except yours (is this a clue?):

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Also, the twenty or so chartered structural engineers in my Dad's firm who were glued to the telly at the time were all saying "it's going to collapse". I am not a structural engineer, so what do I know, but I'm pretty sure they understood the situation. The heat from the fire weakened the steel structural support for the flooring, and all that concrete collapsed downwards; each floor that collapsed added lots more mass.

You don't really need even a basic grasp of physics. Here's a NIST report summary:

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-i...

No you are wrong as it wasn't moving a lot faster, the twin towers were designed to withstand an impact at 600 mph (cruise speed of a 707)whereas both actual impact speeds were of 470 mph and 590 mph. The impact of a 707 the buildings were designed to withstand is actually greater than a 767 at cruising speed of both planes which would result in 10% more damage by the slightly lighter 707.The planes are very similar and the impact of the modelled 707 at cruising speed done by the designers of the twin towers has practically the same forces as the worst one on the day. 

Can you explain the energy absorption mechanism of a structure to absorb the impact of ten of thousands of tons (the structure above) falling a few meters? Unlike a car, a building isn't designed with crumple zones as an energy absorption mechanism.

Can you point to a 1970s New York building design code that specifies building must withstand dynamic load of progressive collapse rather than static loads, wind loading, safety margin & redundancy to prevent any collapse? 

Just like rock climbing, in the absence of an engineered energy absorption* mechanism you're in free fall.

*dynamic rope 

My understanding is that 9/11 was simply too much for the design. The building withstood the impact. But not the fire damage to the structure.

Are you inferring that conspiracies never happen ??

Or just in countries like Russia, Libya or Iraq ?

That UK - The Green & Pleasant Land & America - Land of the Free - are both guiltless in foreign affairs ?

Get Real !

I'm only a gullible non-engineer, but this looks pretty convincing to me and tackles a lot of the oft-repeated killer questions of the conspiracy theorists head on.

In the end though, a huge conspiracy of the kind that would have been required just defies plausibility.  The idea that no-one would have noticed the huge amount of preparation that would have been required, and that no-one involved would have leaked anything, even after all this time is just unbelievable.  Why go to all that trouble as well as arranging for two hijacked planes to crash into the buildings?  What kind of bonkers overkill is that?  Were the planes just a distraction, seriously?  

Plus the minor quibble about who the hell would do it, why, and why they didn't claim responsibility to enforce whatever deranged demand or world view they were trying to enforce.  Did they just think it would be impolite to spoil Bin Laden's big day? 

No the actual engineer stated that his scenario was a slow moving plane looking to land.  Now the port authority decided otherwise but since there is no actual documentation either way I would go with the bloke who designed it.

As for your use of "modelled" as before this doesnt really work since they had neither the tools or the background information to realistically model this. So even if they had designed for it, which they hadnt, it would have been liable to be wrong.

Maybe so but its not going to get us anywhere near the 80% CCDH says we'll need for herd immunity. 

On the other hand we do have Prof Christian Perronne in France telling us that 'of 30,000 covid mortalities, 25,000 would have been saved by HCQ' - now there's real hope

Clearly they arent. They are simply stating NIST would have to be actively involved in the conspiracy.

Odd you decided to leap all the way to this claim.

As a Gov employed scientist I love conspiracy theories, the confidance by some members of the public that any government organisation has the levels of coordination, planning, compitance and manpower involed to pull these off gives me a warm feeling inside. Thanks for believing in us!

Shame all the proper studies havent shown any real advantage.

Out of curiosity why are vaccines bad and HCQ good though?

No, not like a contagious disease, just a steady death rate - is that why it's more acceptable - you don't want to be taken by surprise ?

Quote: World Health Organization (WHO) has released a new Global Status Report on Nonommunicable Diseases (NCDs). The report states that most premature NCD deaths are preventable. Of the 38 million lives lost to NCDs in 2012, 16 million or 42% were premature and avoidable – up from 14.6 million in 2000.

http://www.add-resources.org/number-of-premature-and-avoidable-ncd-deaths-o...

The focus in this article is on tobacco & alcohol - but I think an averagely informed person knows how diest relates to all named in the following:

Quote: The four main categories of NCDs are cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases, which share four modifiable behavioural risk factors: Tobacco use, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and the harmful use of alcohol. The toll from NCDs is increasing, reaching 16 million people dying prematurely in 2012 – before the age of 70.

I'm just imagining the interminable meetings, project scope documentation, work breakdown structure, reponsibilities matrices, project milestones, quality grading of the nano-thermite, human resources for the black ops teams..

Do you think they had some 'project excellence' and 'employee recognition awards' afterwards?

"What are those two little perspex towers on a plastic plinth that you have on your desk, Dave?"

"Erm..."

Wrong again-

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

Wrong again,they did design for it. 

" Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

Like the firefighters who perished in the WTC buildings, Demartini may very well have risked his life to save others, but the evidence suggests that he did not think he was endangering himself by simply going back into the building.

In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph, slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers."

Yes like a contagious disease since that was the context that you were stating your extremely dangerous and irresponsible anti vaccine case. Its not hard and shouldnt need you to jump to wild and bizarre conclusions but since you seem to have problems I will spell it out.

For example Smallpox killed hundreds of thousands a year when there were minimal highly processed foods and was stopped by vaccination. So you would have to be a tad dumb to get rid of both the foods and the vaccination approach.

Well, he was mistaken.

Can't help wondering what else you might be able to achieve if you spent your time and energy on something more productive and satisfying than this endless obsessing about something that all rational analysis indicates didn't happen and couldn't be proved even if it did. 

So why did WTC7 collapse at freefall? 

If you found out you were unwittingly a part of the planning would you expose yourself and your family to the firestorm that would follow? Knowing that folk who murder 3000 innocent people can easily accident or suicide you as the government will be behind them? Or if you were a willing participant who thought of exposing the crime you were a part of do you think you would come out and say 'yes I want to tell the families that I helped to murder 3000 of their innocent relatives?To be attacked by all sides? I don't think so. Look how Assange ends up for calling out the US empire. 

What did it produce? To date a 19 year occupation of Afghanistan and the destruction and occupation of Iraq. A War on Terror that was a War of Terror, the Patriot Act etc 

Unlike you I can handle complexity so just to repeat. There are varying reports but no good evidence remains. One of the chief designers,Leslie E. Robertson, was clear it wasnt designed for that.

And, again, it doesnt matter anyway since they didnt have the capability in the 60s to model it properly anyway.

And this is a perfect example of the flaws of the truthers.

Why if it was a conspiracy didnt they rig the evidence properly to point at Iraq.

Even for Afghanistan it nearly failed since the Taliban were willing to make a deal to get rid of the Saudi troublemakers.

They had this brilliant massive conspiracy but used a bunch of Saudis rather than people wearing I love Saddam t-shirts?

Someone, we must assume was an experienced engineer, was wrong. What else were the builders and designers wrong about?

To be fair, he was probably a brilliant engineer, and undoubtedly a brave man. However, as has been mentioned, the modeling in 1964, wouldn't have used computers. It wouldn't be sophisticated enough to take in all variables. Once again, to give credit where it is due, the buildings did withstand the impact, for a time. That allowed time for many people to escape.

The planes that hit the twin towers were considerably heavier than 707s. Applying very simple physics, it is therefore not correct to say "more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers"

You have not yet addressed my question as to the effect of Newton's Second Law. I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of replying. Similarly, I wonder if you could address my query as to when I said it was impossible to design buildings that could withstand aircraft collsions. 

Evading simple questions does not strengthen your case. 

It's quite clear that conspiracies do happen. However, they don't play out, as one might expect. 

Take the Iraq war. With hundreds of thousands of people planning and executing it, what happened? We took the country in 2 weeks or there abouts, winning the war. Then, we fscked up, and lost the peace and it all went to pot for a decade or so. If you remember, this was a war that was going to pay for itself.

Libya, no doubt had legions of spooks and military people looking at overthrowing that regime. Possibly many, many years in the planning. The war was won, the peace was lost. Not quite as successful in Syria. In Afghanistan we went in as liberators, with the support of the people. That didn't work out so well.

So yes, conspiracies do happen. Just that the execution lets them down. Which makes me think that something more sophisticated than some blokes with rifles and a president in an open top vehicle, will fail.

(See, I didn't mention Brexit.)

In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results, they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

According to NIST you mean. 

Sorry was Iraq their main goal? 

It didn't fail in the slightest as there was no doubt that Afghanistan was getting bombed and invaded. Which it was and did. 

According to them the perpetrators were terrorists hence the War on Terror. 

Yes how could he model for a building packed with thermite charges ready to be brought down in a controlled demolition.

Tell me if the 1964 modelling was not sufficient would he keep going back in to rescue people? 

The top 12 floors cannot crush the bottom 98 without explosive charges to bring it down and the 12 floors would show a loss in acceleration when they impacted the 98 floors beneath them but there was no loss of acceleration. 

youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&

So, two different engineers had differing views. Maybe neither of them were right? Maybe Roberston was right. Maybe 1990s modelling wasn't sufficiently powerful to model all possibilities. 

So why were the terrorists labelled as being Saudis? Given that Saudi Arabia is a major Western ally in the Middle East, it seems a little odd to lay the blame on Saudis when the preferred target was elsewhere.

No idea, although I find it hard to see how any building could actually do that, in any circumstances.

In any case, it didn't, according to this:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/ 

Just so I'm clear, what's your conspiracy theory here?  Do you say this was done by whoever was responsible for WTC 1 & 2, or somebody different?  Was there some sort of joint plan announced on the dark web for anyone who was interested in a bit of public demolition to pick a building in Manhattan and join in on 9/11?   

I'm not a materials or buildings expert but given the two options of either:

a) an unprecedented event involving two heavily fuel laden planes exploding in close proximity to a building which then undergoes a catastrophic fire. This clearly goes beyond any design intent for all except a few military and nuclear installations. Granted it has been classed as the first steel frame building to collapse due to (or related to) a fire, this does not mean it can't happen, merely it hadn't previously been observed.

b) a massive cover up involving the complete compliance of many people to successfully achieve a clandestine controlled explosion in building being occupied by multiple US intelligence agencies, amongst others. Given the main attack succeeded mainly because of low technology (knives, fake explosives to scare passengers, poor internal flight security screening) why would anyone go to so much trouble to then destroy a less iconic building in such a complex way? 

I reckon option A is more plausible, don't you? I would describe option B as being pretty "crackpot". Maybe I've been duped, "their" master plan has worked, even the USA's most capable adversaries' intelligence agencies haven't found out and decided against publicly humiliating the States for their mistakes. But go ahead, believe what you want, just don't expect many to take it seriously.

Eh no, Robertson directly contradicted his own statement where previously stated--"little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” So for some strange reason he changed his tack afterwards. 

Did we go and invade and attack ROI during the troubles? No so why attack KSA because some of its people joined an international jihad that attacked America? 

Perhaps he changed his mind. Perhaps he was hedging his bets. Perhaps he recognised and acknowledged that the modelling had its limits. I am surprised that you are not open to the possibility that he made a mistake. 

You do a good job of missing the point. If the aim of the 9/11 conspiracy was to create a pretext to invade Afghanistan, why were the hijackers not labelled as Afghanis? If the conspiracy was capable of all that happened, lobbing a few Afghani passports into the mix would be small beer. 

I am also still waiting for your thoughts on the effect of Newton's Second Law. You have previously been keen to invoke Newton's Third law, so I would have thought you would have such basic physics covered. 

And I am also still waiting for a response from your claim that I am "basically saying that it is beyond architects to design buildings that safeguard against a plane flying into them". As I said earlier, I have made no such claim. A retraction would be appropriate and welcome. 

You've come in a bit late to the show. I have asserted on many occasions - it's not the governments - but rather the offstage actors - content to avoid the encircling spotlight

Before 2138 last night I wouldn't have believed a single word of it either... 🙄

Please provide these test results. At best some simplistic modelling was done not a proper test, for rather obvious reasons.

I would want to see this quote in context although I do like how you are trying to use this despite it being clearly wrong. He has discounted whatever your conspiracy theory as well.

No according to anyone who thinks about the limitations of 1960s technology for a moment.

It was a high priority goal hence why they attacked it in short order. So why on earth didnt they fit Saddam up properly instead of relying on insinuation and crap about WMD (see there is a case of the US and UK government lying through their teeth).

Well yes but it failed to gain as much support as they could have if they had spent a bit more effort fitting people up.

No, let me spell it out. Forget about the past. In the present pandemic we're grumbling about 850k - if you believe the figures. In the figures I quoted for 2012 we have 16,000,000 premature. As discussed in that article - with the WHO stamp of approval on it - inputs to many of these are identified and subject to political will - easy to change.

Have we seen government stampdown on tobacco, alcohol & sugar ? These lead to the mortalities - 18x greater than cv19 - and we know exactly what to change to effect this. Such change would impact NCDs directly AND reduce sars2 vulnerability - so compound benefits.

So, tell me why the worlds governments haven't acted ?

It's not just black helicopters that can go over your head without you noticing...

Yet you continue to bang on about governments, its getting rather tiresome.

Are there any structural engineers listed? Architects and physicists know very little about building design and behaviour.

Also note the twin towers did survive plane crashes, so pointing out they were designed to doesn't move things forward. The fires are what resulted in collapse.

If there's any conspiracy at all worth believing, it would be the rather more prosaic version wherein someone makes a quick buck by supplying substandard building materials and passing them off as genuine by forging certification certificates or by simple bribery of a tiny number of people. No amount of design engineering or test modelling could guard against that, and the chances of it having gone undetected until now are ridiculously high because any one of the tiny number of people who knew about it beforehand would be facing an almost certain prison sentence if it were to have got out.

But they have. The WHO has doubled back on it's own authority to suppress tests in France

Personally I would advise people to first do what they can with lifestyle changes. However given the lack of preparedness, the justification for a pandemic is that 'we have no cure'. This is a lie, chloroquine / HCQ was proposed by several authorities at a v early stage - pre lockdown. This drug is very cheap, and the suppression of it's use reveals the pandemic politics in one hit. 

So what is 'bad' ? Waiting for a vaccine and spreading fear that it's the only solution. Had HCQ been used at all stages in all countries there would be very few mortalities to talk about, and most unlikley to justify the term 'pandemic'.

No worries, that is out of date as that NIST report has been thoroughly exposed as wrong. I posted about that upthread in a link go find. 

Obviously whoever blew up WTC7 blew up both twin towers and the only people who could do all that is the regime at that time using intelligence mobs and the military. Especially highlighted by the use of cutting edge thermite found in all dust samples taken in the area. 

So what was the point of the planes? 

Again you are mixing things up and trying to move the goalposts away from your dangerous anti vaccine position. Its simple enough relying on "natural health" often results in large numbers of corpses. Modern medicine and vaccines in particular help keep deaths down.

As for why governments dont act on tobacco, alcohol and sugar.  For the first two in particular many governments have acted against them and tried to reduce their usage. However its a long term project although one which seems to be working somewhat for tobacco. For alcohol though you have the issue that moonshine isnt very hard and so any attempt to ban it can result in more dangerous homebrew. Incidently South Africa did enact a ban this year with mixed success. Its also worth noting the tories seem to be moving towards greater intervention about food but are running into internal strife.

The problem is, in case you havent noticed, some people are rather suspicious about governments and want to limit its ability to interfere in what they see as their own personal business. That when combined with our tendancy not to be that good at evaluating long term risk as well as a great ability to fool ourselves makes it hard to crack down.

Are you confusing apples with eggs here? Thermite is not an explosive, they demo it in school science, for example. It burns really hot and can melt steel, which would fit with some idea of a man made demolition. However, it burns really brightly. Vids would show it glowing white hot, as it burnt. Also, it would not be instantaneous, as an explosion might be.

I would have thought you'd want a floor to collapse in one go. If it sorta dropped at different rates, you might not get the required effect of the whole building coming down. If it doesn't come down, then you run the risk of someone discovering the demolition mechanism(s).

Yes. If the modeling was flawed and said it was safe. Or, he could just be very brave. Some firefighters didn't abandon the second tower, even after the first had fallen, for example.

Fair enough!  It is getting increasingly difficult to spot satire against the background of genuine paranoia and delusion!

How exactly? All that has happened is it has been tested on a larger scale and hasnt been found to be effective. How have they been suppressed?

You will need to help me out here. Even if I take your claim at face value why exactly are governments doing this? Its going to be a mess which stands a good chance of wiping out any government who was in charge at the time regardless of guilt. So why on earth would they suppress this miracle cure? They would look great especially compared to the bozos who suppressed it for some reason. What on earth is the benefit to the medical chiefs and PMs/Presidents?

OK, I'm not getting sucked into this any further, but this seems to be a specific claim for which you presumably have some evidence.  The NIST report specifically denies it. 

How am I supposed to know that? 

Physicists agreed architects disagree. 

How do fires down WTC7 building exactly symmetrically at freefall speed (nothing under it) into its own footprint and leave pools of molten metal at the scene? 

Look at the various different films of it and chuckle at how wrong you are-

youtube.com/watch?v=k7GJOimeHII&

Oh and edit let's have a right laugh at  NIST on the above film for denying the NY firefighters who heard all the explosions at WTC7 and the twin towers over 100 seperate eyewitness accounts where NIST said there were none.

And the top NIST man on the film who says there were no molten pools of metal when there are numerous reports of them. 

First, no-one is “justifying a pandemic”. It doesn’t need to be justified - there is a recognised definition of a pandemic and the current situation meets it. No one is implementing a pandemic and needing to justify their actions. 

Second, even in your wilder moments you never went as far as to claim that HCQ was a “cure” or that it should be used at all stages of the illness. Your suspect lone-wolf scientists never went anywhere near such a sweeping claim. 

You’re drifting further into fantasy by the day. 

It was the only English words in the stange foreign language that gave it away:

youtube.com/watch?v=4CV2GuK6CmY&

What explosions? You have just claimed it is thermite which, as dread-i points out, isnt an explosive.

There weren't any planes, what we saw were holograms to distract from the rigged charges. Wake up, sheeple!!!

Sheeple seems to be one of those conspiracist terms that has gone out of fashion a bit. It always used to be a clear indicator of a very closed mind. 

Thermite found in all dust samples taken on 911 and 1011, NIST? No explanation. Melting steel filmed pouring from one twin tower, numerous reports of flowing molten steel after the controlled demolitions of all 3 buildings-

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

Don't kid yourself he would not have continually went back in there unless he thought it was safe as per the tests done in 1964.

This thread has a bit of a groundhog day feel to it now...

Nano-thermite is. 

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/359-faq-6-what-is-nanothermite-cou...

A spectacular terrorist attack on the USA, a 'new Pearl Harbour', to justify and get the full support of the American public for a War on Terror, destruction of and 18 year occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, Patriot Act etc. 

I thought yesterday you said it was just WTC7 that was unexplained by the official narrative. So planes made the towers collapse but the hijackers were working for/tricked by the US government? I'm so confused.

Why did the US government want to invade Afghanistan?