Don't let fear influence your thinking. That said, that message seems to imply something pretty threatening. If you end up in any escalation with this guy, just call the police. You don't want any trouble, and you might be surprised how quickly these sorts of situations can get out of hand.

No. I have been very lucky though, with so many of the things I've pulled earlier in my life.

If you hate it so much, do well, go to summer school, and study graduation requirements. Maybe then you'll figure out how to shave a few years off your attendance so you won't have to deal with it much longer (i.e. graduate early).

If you hate college just as much, rinse and repeat (and maybe take a few CLEP exams).

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"] Watch the video for yourself. This kind of comment is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I don't care if it's one engineer or 1 million speaking out against the official story, if a valid question is asked it needs to be answered. I don't really want to get into why the movement has barely 1,000 members, but, at least in America, speaking out against the official story can destroy your social status. Many people aren't willing to risk that.PernicioEnigma

I don't need to watch any more propaganda from this group, and unless you're an engineer or architect (or someone who understands building design in sufficient detail), I recommend that you don't either. There are plenty of resources that counter this kind of information, and quite honestly, these are mostly the same old arguments and witch hunts I've seen for a long time. Check your facts.

But regardless of the science, you've really got to ask yourself: why is it a valid question? Why would anyone demolish a tower if it's going to be hit by an airplane ahead of time? The carnage from that alone would be more than enough to justify whatever happens afterward in terms of geopolitical politics and movements. Apparently people don't realize just how rare successful mass casualty terrorist attacks are in the U.S. And how presumptuous do you think it is that you think this organization can speak for the 1.5 million+ engineers in the U.S. alone? Even people with status have risked a lot more than just that throughout history. I think they are not ill equipped to act somehow on a mass scale without overtly harming their status.

It's a common misconception that you need to be an architect or a structural engineer to see the flaws in the official reports findings. Not only do they break fundamental laws of physics, they also go against what anyone can see with their own eyes when watching videos of the towers collapsing.

We can speculate all day as to why, say, the US government would've wanted the buildings to come down, but that isn't why I created this thread. I wanted to discuss the documentary and avoid exactly the kind of replies you're making. Maybe a question I should ask you is why would over 1,000 architects and engineers be spreading "propaganda"? Funnily enough, if anyone is spreading propaganda, it's the NIST report which, as I stated in my OP, purposely omits evidence to support their view. Don't you think it's odd that even though all three buildings collapsed in exactly the same fashion as a controlled demolition (among other evidence to support this hypothesis) they didn't even look for evidence of explosives? That's not scientific, what they're doing is conducting an investigation based on a pre-conceived conclusion.

It's no surprise they don't release the data for their computer models of the collapse, in fact, they denied this information when a group of structural engineers requested it because, apparently, it was a "threat to public safety". How is giving out information that can help engineers design safer buildings threaten the public? Remember, before 9/11 no modern steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire, and if you look around on the net you'll find many examples of much older steel structured buildings burning out of control for almost days at a time, and yet the steel frame of the building remains intact, while the rest of the building is completely destroyed.

I have checked my facts by the way, and while some of the questions raised in the documentary have been around awhile, none of them have been explained to any satisfactory degree, and trust me, I've looked. Maybe if you were kind enough you could watch the documentary and find me these counter arguments? One things for sure, NIST aren't coming up with them...

1. If the specific mode of collapse breaks the laws of physics, please tell me how the buildings should have collapsed, given both the circumstances and WTC 1, 2, & 7's structural design.

2. If anything, it's the A&E 9/11 Truth that has a preconceived conclusion, and they just continually mold what evidence supports their conclusion while ignoring the bigger (and more logical) evidence that doesn't.

3. A lot of flat earthers were around for awhile. Doesn't mean anything as to what their still small numbers are. You also can't prove that there is a silent majority worried about damage to their social status.

4. I'm also pretty sure no building was hit by a commercial airliner used deliberately as a missile and loaded with fuel.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

PernicioEnigma

I don't need to watch any more propaganda from this group, and unless you're an engineer or architect (or someone who understands building design in sufficient detail), I recommend that you don't either. There are plenty of resources that counter this kind of information, and quite honestly, these are mostly the same old arguments and witch hunts I've seen for a long time. Check your facts.

But regardless of the science, you've really got to ask yourself: why is it a valid question? Why would anyone demolish a tower if it's going to be hit by an airplane ahead of time? The carnage from that alone would be more than enough to justify whatever happens afterward in terms of geopolitical politics and movements. Apparently people don't realize just how rare successful mass casualty terrorist attacks are in the U.S. And how presumptuous do you think it is that you think this organization can speak for the 1.5 million+ engineers in the U.S. alone? Even people with status have risked a lot more than just that throughout history. I think they are not ill equipped to act somehow on a mass scale without overtly harming their status.

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have less than 2,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Thirty years ago, Hama. Now, Homs. What a disgraceful and disgustingly brutal dynasty the Assads are.

BossPerson

The international community will not be able to act, at least not meaningfully. Not with all of these budget problems, military cuts, and Syria's powerful allies. They (FSA and the larger opposition movement) are on their own.

Thirty years ago, Hama. Now, Homs. What a disgraceful and disgustingly brutal dynasty the Assads are.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

The aging process is interesting. We simpy accept that people age and die, but why? What cellular process takes place that causes it? There certainly are immortal cell lines that dont die off. So that's a possibility that we may find some way to halt it. However, is that in the best nature of our species? Mother nature designed us so we had an expiration date. Once people stop dying, overpopulation, war, scarcity of resources, destruction of the environment all become bigger issues.

shakmaster13

Would somehow elongating or keeping constant the length of telomeres necessarily be cancerous? As I understand it, such a process facilitates the indefinite division of cells in cancerous tumors, but is there any research as to ways that this can be controlled?

The aging process is interesting. We simpy accept that people age and die, but why? What cellular process takes place that causes it? There certainly are immortal cell lines that dont die off. So that's a possibility that we may find some way to halt it. However, is that in the best nature of our species? Mother nature designed us so we had an expiration date. Once people stop dying, overpopulation, war, scarcity of resources, destruction of the environment all become bigger issues.

sonicare

There's also a few organisms in the world that are "biologically immortal". That is, they can be killed, but just not by biological aging. I think the issues of translating that to humans are definitely there, but like I said above, even just life extension (or "prime life extension") for a somewhat longer period of time could make a world of difference. Could there be unforeseen consequences? I don't doubt it. Would those problems definitely become more pronounced? Surely. But I think the positives would be outweighed by the negatives, proven it does not change life as we know it in any other adverse ways.