9-11, give me a break.

[Regina]

Exactly

I get it might not mean that much to probably most people, really I have no connection to it, but that's fine, I'll just go about my day as normal. No need to shit on people who want to mourn and remember the people they lost.

[Sterben]

9-11 did not even bother me when it happened, I remember being in English class as Freshmen in High School. Some friends and were talking about some old Anime's that we liked. My teacher told us about what happened. There was gasps and feelings of "Oh no, why did this happen to my country." I did not even say anything about it and went back to the topic I was talking about. I got a lot of dirty looks from other classmates.

My reasons for it not bothering me is as the following.
*Attacks happen everyday on every country in some form*
*I've never cared about National pride*
*I don't make a habit of personalizing many national issues*
*I don't stand or give a moment of silence for the National Anthem*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOmQP9guIl0

[Sterben]

Exactly

I get it might not mean that much to probably most people, really I have no connection to it, but that's fine, I'll just go about my day as normal. No need to shit on people who want to mourn and remember the people they lost.

     I'm glad someone said it, shitting on people who have served in unethical wars, or people who did lose people in 9-11 is wrong. Now, pulling your pants down and dropping a nice big shit on the issues of the war is far different then shitting on the solderers. I work with some military vets, and a lot of them agree with me that what they went to war for was pointless.

[Losty]

If nearly 3,000 people die in a terrifying and gruesome tragedy and you don't care because you're not that patriotic...that's a little bit fucked up.

[Arkilogue]

I wonder if there's any new science on 9/11? Turns out there is...

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/275-news-...c-7-s-dest

Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.

Prior to publishing these papers, the team of researchers carefully reviewed the work of Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, who had published a paper shortly after 9/11 focusing on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” Bažant’s paper presented “a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.”

Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires. As Korol explains, “WTC 7 is a particularly useful example, because there isn't the concern about trying to predict the amount of heat generated by spewing jet fuel and having it ignited within a building. It's the materials within the building that generate the heat release.”

The greater certainty about the material properties involved would allow the team to evaluate whether WTC 7 could have collapsed as a result of burning materials being ejected from WTC 1 and igniting fires on the 12th and 13th floors. The team’s analysis eventually led them to conclude that even with very high estimates for the amount of combustible materials present in office buildings — using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes — and making many other generous assumptions, such as having two floors “totally ablaze with raging inferno fires,” WTC 7 still would not collapse.

...

Korol and his colleagues also undertook tests at McMaster University with regard to pulverization of concrete that is typically specified for floors incorporating ductile steel to restrain lateral motion. He explains, “Crushing is not an effective way of transforming brittle material into pulverized material. When you combine that with the 82 columns, there is no way the building is going to come down.”

[Sterben]

It's not that I don't care, for me to show a concern for an issue I always ask myself one question. Is the situation relevant to me? I then exam the info I do know at the time and figure out my answer. For the 9-11 I used the exact same method of thinking, I paused my conversation with my friends for brief moment; I came to conclusion that it was not for the moment and went back to what I was doing. Did that action make me a bad American? I don't think so, it just makes me self-centered.

[Arkilogue]

And this...

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/15-y...ition.html

Over the past 15 years many highly respected academics and experts have come forward to challenge the official narrative on the collapse of the WTC towers forwarded by the U.S. government. The official government position holds that the collapse of all three towers was due to intense heat inside of the buildings.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as a “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.



“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.

The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

The comprehensive study in Europhysics News directly challenges the official narrative and lends to a growing body of evidence that seriously questions the veracity of the government narrative.

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/...6-47-4.pdf

[Seraphina]

It took me a month after 9/11 until I was able to feel ok about laughing about anything at all.
"Is it ok to laugh again?" I thought. How could I laugh after watching men and women jump 1,000 feet out of a high rise and hitting the ground with sickening thuds?
It was 10 years before I could again watch news footage of that day. I watched a few documentaries over this past weekend mostly to provide some knowledge for my daughter, had nightmares last night and won't watch anything more for maybe another 15 years.

You can disagree with the invasion of Iraq and the drone wars and also at the same time be horrified and want for the dignity of people who died on 9/11. It's not binary or either/ or for me. I wonder why it is for others?

[Arkilogue]

And just yesterday...

Forensic Structural Engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings and conclusion of his WTC 7 Evaluation study to a panel of attorneys at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 11, 2016. Using finite element modelling, Dr. Hulsey and his team found that the official explanation by NIST for the collapse of WTC 7, which is that ordinary office fires brought the building down, is wrong. When asked by Public Interest Attorney Daniel Sheehan, "On a scale of 1 to 100, what is the possibility that WTC 7 could have collapsed simply because of fires?" Dr. Hulsey replied, "Zero". He also said that if any of his Ph.D. students had submitted the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 that NIST has given us, he would have failed them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxG4lYyitsI

[Seraphina]

Arkilogue, Do you believe the moon landing was faked too? Cause there's "evidence" for that as well.
Do you have any idea how difficult impossible it is to keep a secret like this? 15 years and not ONE conspirator/ participant has come forward to support these looney-bin theories.

What's that other Hitch saying - oh yeah -
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."