Do you believe what you see or what others tell you you saw?

[Willie Boy]

I believe what I see, unless it's something I have no understanding of (then I ask someone who has a clue).

For example, I believe that stars are celestial bodies, because people who know can provide a body of evidence that supports this, not because I've seen them in person.

No they are not. Stars are simply people who get in front of cameras to portray different, often fictional, people. And in some cases I use the term people very lightly. I've met some.

 

[mikey3000]

Or better yet, just study a bit on building implosions and you will understand the months and months of planning, preparation, and demolition which must precede bringing down a building. It's not something you can hide or 'sneak past' passers-by.

Well, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder at WTC 7 said the decision to pull it down was made that day, no prep, no nothing. It came down nice and smooth.

I beleive what I have studied.

And what I see.

Obviously, the OP wouldn't have a fucking clue about the behaviour of structures or the actual structural layout of WTC 7.

I've posted this shit so many times for the tin foil hat brigade that it is ridiculous.....but here again is a smattering of actual facts for the paranoid bong water drinkers.

We know that WTC burned out of control for hours before collapsing.



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

The failure of WTC 7 was a classic failure triggered by the exposure of steel to intense heat for an extended period of time. Whereas steel is provided with sprayed coatings to delay collapse until firefighters can bring a blaze under control...the loss of the sprinkler systems and the fact that there was no way of fighting this fire from the outset meant that this building was a write-off from the outset.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/collapse-symmetry/

It even fell backward the way it would have been modelled with the failure of the joints and the members.

So spend the time...read the analysis on this site and all the reports that they cite and it all becomes totally clear.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Or you could take a few hits, visit your favourite conspiracy web-site and watch a video made by someone who has no fucking clue about the behaviour of structures make up some bullshit theory.

But WTC 7 had no damage from jet fuel. And one of the world's top experts on demolition viewed the tapes and said it was a controlled demolition.

 

[jbrown329]

Well, I do believe this.

The Power of Nightmares

The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. The series consists of three one-hour films, consisting mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration, which were first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and have been subsequently aired in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and noting strong similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

Part 1. 'Baby It's Cold Outside'
Part 2. 'The Phantom Victory'
Part 3. 'The Shadows in the Cave'

 

[rareboy]

Well, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder at WTC 7 said the decision to pull it down was made that day, no prep, no nothing. It came down nice and smooth.

But WTC 7 had no damage from jet fuel. And one of the world's top experts on demolition viewed the tapes and said it was a controlled demolition.

You still haven't bothered to read the actual reports have you?

And you'd rather the second hand reporting on the opinion of one demolition 'expert' who also didn't do the forensic analysis.

And even though the evidence is right in the picture that it din't come down 'nice and smooth', you think that the results look like a controlled demolition. On a building that was burning for hours.

Out of tin foil again, eh?

Pitiful.

 

[rareboy]

The irony behind the OP is that it is a perfect example of how intellectually lazy people actually do believe what some intellectually lazy youtube conspiracy wing-nut yells them what they are 'seeing'.

 

[gsdx]

Well, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder at WTC 7 said the decision to pull it down was made that day, no prep, no nothing. It came down nice and smooth.

I won't argue with you, but imploding a building of that size in one day is impossible, physically, technically, and scientifically. You really should try leaning something instead of believing in impossible conspiracy theories.

 

[Pierresro]

I lived in New York when the WTC was planned and building commenced. Through out the build Architects said if either building was hit by a place the size of even a 707 they would collapse. While what happened on 9/11 was not an accident apparently they were right!

 

[jbrown329]

What? This isn't the actual truth?

Yes, I've watched it. I treated it like Conspiracy Theory (1997) IMDb

 

[Telstra]

The irony behind the OP is that it is a perfect example of how intellectually lazy people actually do believe what some intellectually lazy youtube conspiracy wing-nut yells them what they are 'seeing'.

I'm also intellectually lazy but how come i don't believe any crazy stuff like conspiracy theories ... etc.?
The title says "Do you believe what you see or what others tell you you saw"
The OP choose the "what others tell you" ?

 

[gsdx]

I'm also intellectually lazy but how come i don't believe any crazy stuff like conspiracy theories ... etc.?

Common sense?

 

[Telstra]

Common sense?

Maybe,
but i also get bits of information from here and there and form an over all opinion.

 

[Draven]

If my eyes fail me then I believe what my gut tells me, think yew.

 

[gsdx]

Maybe,
but i also get bits of information from here and there and form an over all opinion.

Knowing how things work also helps. What the conspiracy theorists claim happened cannot have happened, no matter how much 'evidence' they think they have. Even if they took a half-hour to do a little studying, they would know how wrong they've been, but they probably wouldn't believe scientific fact as much as we don't believe the science fiction. There is no basis whatsoever for their theories.

 

[Telstra]

Knowing how things work also helps. What the conspiracy theorists claim happened cannot have happened, no matter how much 'evidence' they think they have. Even if they took a half-hour to do a little studying, they would know how wrong they've been, but they probably wouldn't believe scientific fact as much as we don't believe the science fiction. There is no basis whatsoever for their theories.

Yes,
also the wiring of the brain?
Some people will believe in god until they die no matter what because of the brain wiring ?

 

[gsdx]

Yes,
also the wiring of the brain?
Some people will believe in god until they die no matter what because of the brain wiring ?

^ Believing in God is different, no matter how the brain is wired.

I used to work in a graphic arts place, photographing and developing film for the printing industry. There were 2 different ways to do the photography: reflection (lighted from the front) and transmission (lighted from behind, such as with a piece of film). When developing the exposed film, the reflection numbers had to be +10. (I won't bother to explain why. It's not important, but the numbers were.) The transmission numbers had to be -10.

Now, for a reflection film, if I got the number +6, I had adjust the exposures and development to raise that number to +10. However, if I got -6 for a transmission number, I had to LOWER it to -10. Unfortunately, my boss insisted that I had to RAISE that number to -10. I could not convince him that -10 is lower than -6. Even when I achieved -10 by doing the opposite of what he told me to do, he was happy about the outcome, but not happy about my methods and insisted that I do it his way, even though it was completely the opposite of what had to be done.

Any child in grade 8 student could prove to my boss that he was wrong. Heck, just looking at a thermometer would show him he was wrong. But he was sure he was right and nothing could make him believe that it was impossible. Just like the people who insist that the WTC7 collapse was a controlled implosion, and that it was accomplished in one single day despite evidence that it is completely impossible.

(PS - I quit a month or so later. I couldn't take his crap any more.)

 

[Telstra]

^ sounds like your boss got used to those numbers and they worked for him so why change.
People don't like change for change sake unless the result improve greatly.

 

[Kabluey]

^ he was dumb.
Funny how a small number of managers want to tell technicians/professionals/experts how to perform the technicalities of their work.

 

[gsdx]

^ They DIDN'T work for him. His wife and I did the work. He never did a thing in the camera and development rooms, so he didn't have a clue. I seriously doubt that he even knew how to do it. He just owned the place.

 

[jbrown329]

^ he was dumb.
Funny how a small number of managers want to tell technicians/professionals/experts how to perform the technicalities of their work.

When I was in college (auto mechanics), I pulled my Honda into the shop to do a compression test. You don't do a 'normal' compression test. You screw the hose of the compression gauge into the spark plug hole. Then you crank the engine until the gauge quits rising. Here comes one of the instructors, Mr. Johnson, who was an idiot. He says "you're doing it wrong, that's not they way you do it". I reached in the driver's window and grabbed the Mechanic's Manual (the manual that the Honda dealership used) and proved his ass wrong. Well, thereafter he flunked me in every class that he taught. I did not get my degree. He got a quart of methanol in the gas tank. Hope he enjoyed rebuilding the engine.

As for WTC7, I followed a couple 9/11 forums. Just to read what they posted. They were nuttier than a Payday bar.

 

[mikey3000]

You still haven't bothered to read the actual reports have you?

And you'd rather the second hand reporting on the opinion of one demolition 'expert' who also didn't do the forensic analysis.

And even though the evidence is right in the picture that it din't come down 'nice and smooth', you think that the results look like a controlled demolition. On a building that was burning for hours.

Out of tin foil again, eh?

Pitiful.

Do you mean the official reports that had 28 pages missing, only to be released 15 years later and reveal that the Saudis were behind the financing of the terrorist pilots? That's a conspiracy on it's own.

I won't argue with you, but imploding a building of that size in one day is impossible, physically, technically, and scientifically. You really should try leaning something instead of believing in impossible conspiracy theories.

Impossible? No plane hit WTC 7 yet it came down just hours later. We all saw it live.

People who believe that the WTC7 was a controlled demolition really have no idea what a 'controlled demolition' is. Firstly, it's a controlled 'implosion' although the building is usually demolished in the process. What the 'implosion' means is that the building implodes into itself. Buildings which fall in one direction or another instead of straight down are 'controlled demolitions'.

Here's an example of a controlled implosion:

Here is a controlled demolition:

In either a demolition or an implosion, there are months and sometimes years of planning, then months of preparation which includes the demolition of support walls and, for steel supports, removal of the outer 'decoration' right down to the bare steel. Special charges are then attached strategically to the bare supports. When set off, these charges actually melt through the supports in an explosive charge. They don't actually blow them up.

If the WTC7 was a controlled implosion, along with the Twin Towers, there isn't a person in New York City who wouldn't have known about it months ahead of time, and they certainly couldn't have thrown it together in a few hours as some theorists have claimed.

If you watch the original video above again, watch the right-hand side of the building. You will see dark 'spaces' appear. A lot has been made of these as proof that it was a planned and controlled event. When you watch it and see the spaces appear, back it up again and watch more carefully when those spaces appear. The building is already collapsing at the bottom. The spaces appear because of the collapse. They had nothing to do with causing it.

This looks just like the first implosion video you showed, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU&feature=youtu.be

Yet you say that this building, WTC 7 came down just like this on it's own accord within mere hours of the event, even after the leaseholder admitted on national TV he made the decision to pull it? Man, you are not making sense.

Let me ask you this, why is, "believing in God is not the same thing, no matter how the brain is wired" ? Many on here believe that God and religion is one big conspiracy, why isn't it the same thing? Could it be that you actually believe in God?