• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Poly coming to America?

It's nothing to do with collateral damage from shockwaves - building 7 came down a full seven hours after the collapse of the primary buildings, not while being rocked by shockwaves from them. I've never heard anyone claim that one before, the accepted narrative is that it came down due to a fire which weakened the structure.

There has been some very detailed mathematical modelling of building 7 that showed that the fall it made was completely consistent with a controlled demolition with the centre supports taken out momentarily before the outside supports exactly as per a textbook methodology to keep the collapse neatly vertical and avoid damage to adjacent buildings, and inconsistent with any other scenario they could simulate.

It's not "ridiculous caca", it's careful scientific analysis. That sort of dismissive attitude just reminds me of a news anchor labelling the Wuhan lab leak a "conspiracy theory" so they can ignore it...

I don't recall any photos of a plane half sticking out of the Pentagon, and I just checked some old news footage to confirm. After impact, the plane (and I am running with the assumption it was a plane following the above discussion) had disintegrated so much and been embedded so far in the building none of it was sticking out. That is why the doubts have existed right from the day it occurred - because the news footage of the Pentagon on the day did NOT show a plane (at least not obviously). I'm not sure you're remembering that correctly - you may of course have seen imagery that I have not seen, but it would be images of the same building.

In this case, I'm not disputing with you on the fact - we can agree it was almost certainly a plane. I am however disputing your assertion that there was loads of footage that made it clear on the day.
Wasn't there a fourth building (at the World Trade Center) that also fell down (but wasn't struck)?

At the time, I totally believed the official narrative. Over the last few years, I've seen so many true conspiracies, that I am now going back and reconsidering stuff like 911.

For example, I'm also really doubting the moon landing story now.o_O
 
There is just about nothing that is done in the realm of "modeling" that I put credence in. Garbage in, garbage out.
Computer modelling happens to be one of my professional specialities, in a completely different discipline though, and I actually agree with the fallibility of models. The more modelling you do, the less you trust it! But models are foundational to engineering too - a mathematical model is how you decide how wide a bridge's spans can be for instance. It's useful, yet you have to be exceptionally careful with it.

One major problem with the Building 7 official narrative is that it relies on computer models. The official claim is that a fire caused the building to collapse. If so, this is the only time in history a fire has caused a building like that to collapse. The theory does not align with real-world experience, nor with video footage. To justify this, the official investigators rely on computer models to say that in this unique case the collapse of the building could actually occur.

Others have examined that work more carefully and concluded that the official models are incorrect, arguably fraudulent, and have used more conservative modelling that sticks closer to real-world observations to conclude that the extraordinary official modelling claims are false.

If you're going to distrust computer models @Keith Martin, are you going to distrust the modelling on both sides? Or just the modelling of the side you happen to have predetermined that you disagree with?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there a fourth building (at the World Trade Center) that also fell down (but wasn't struck)?
There was a third building that was not struck, yet fell down hours later, called "Building 7", officially due to fire. To learn more about that, check out the only independent university engineering study ever conducted on it (the government wouldn't fund it, concerned citizens finally made it happen years later), released in 2019. This concludes the official modelling is false, and the building must have been brought down by demolition charges.
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Summary here: https://canada.constructconnect.com...-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report
 
If you're going to distrust computer models @Keith Martin, are you going to distrust the modelling on both sides? Or just the modelling of the side you happen to have predetermined that you disagree with?

I start out with distrust for it no matter what position it's used to support. The infrequency with which models predict the future makes even the accurate ones far less than useful.
 
Just the grand scale of what it would have taken to coordinate planes, cruise missiles and targeted demolition taking place all at precise times, in combination with thousands of eyewitness accounts (as compared to the handful who 'saw' something contrary) stretches credulity way beyond its breaking point. No amount of theorizing is going to convince me that that many Pentagon employees, NYC residents, every news network, the family members of the people on the flight that hit the Pentagon, could cooperate in such a scheme without even one leak to prove otherwise.
This is essentially where I'm at in this matter. In addition, it's hard to theorize about how or why the buildings pancaked since engineers don't exactly test their designs against jumbo jets, with God knows what cargo, plowing into the side of them.

@Keith Martin, I don't think there's ever been footage of half a plane sticking out of the pentagon. Hyperbole?

However....that building #7 does present some problems. It was not exactly close to the twin towers. It did pancake and did seem to look like a demolition explosion. I'm not claiming a secret plot as a whole, but that one building is problematic. Just being honest.
 
However....that building #7 does present some problems. It was not exactly close to the twin towers. It did pancake and did seem to look like a demolition explosion. I'm not claiming a secret plot as a whole, but that one building is problematic. Just being honest.
Exactly. Everything else may be plausible, but that building is a giant flashing neon sign saying "Stop and think".
I start out with distrust for it no matter what position it's used to support. The infrequency with which models predict the future makes even the accurate ones far less than useful.
Good. So if we throw out all models, we're left with nothing to support the idea that building #7 came down from the planes. The official story is that it came down from fire caused by the plane crash, but practical experience shows that fire never causes such buildings to collapse, therefore the official story is almost certainly false (hence why they've relied on modelling to try and support it). Practical experience also shows that intentionally demolished buildings fall with the same pattern shown in the video footage. So if we ignore all computer models, the logical conclusion is that building #7 did not come down from fire, but was taken down with demolition charges. How someone could actually achieve that is a mystery to me, but it's the most reasonable option.
I don't think there's ever been footage of half a plane sticking out of the pentagon. Hyperbole?
I am convinced that @Keith Martin is imagining this. It must be a false memory his subconscious has implanted. I checked the original Fox coverage yesterday to make sure I wasn't forgetting something, and sure enough that footage never showed anything like what Keith described. Given that Keith is also asserting that building 7 came down from shockwaves, which is also something I've never heard anyone claim, I think he is simply not remembering the details of that day very accurately.
 
I’ve been looking at pictures of the aftermath and I can’t find the view I had. Most of the shots are from a helicopter. I saw if from a ridge line.

The image is pretty indelibly imprinted in my mind but the mind can be a tricky thing.
 
I have heard that some of the footage/pictures have been disappeared. But that would be a convenient charge to make.
 
the mind can be a tricky thing.
Exactly. I think we may sometimes hear a description of something, picture it as an image, and then remember that image as if we saw it. I heard it all on the radio that day, so I didn't see the images immediately, but I certainly visualised what I heard about and can remember the day vividly.
 
I have heard that some of the footage/pictures have been disappeared. But that would be a convenient charge to make.
Regardless of whether the conspiracy theories are true or false, pictures that supported the official narrative wouldn't have been disappeared. Only pictures that disagreed with it. So if there was a photo of a plane sticking out of the building it would have been reprinted everywhere and be easy to find. On the other hand if there was a photo of Hillary Clinton pushing the plunger on a cartoon dynamite detonator while cackling hysterically, that might have been disappeared. :)
 
Regardless of whether the conspiracy theories are true or false, pictures that supported the official narrative wouldn't have been disappeared. Only pictures that disagreed with it. So if there was a photo of a plane sticking out of the building it would have been reprinted everywhere and be easy to find. On the other hand if there was a photo of Hillary Clinton pushing the plunger on a cartoon dynamite detonator while cackling hysterically, that might have been disappeared. :)
That is a reasonably logical assumption.
 
Back
Top