Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/CWstatI102003.html#p11

[Garrette]

Reference your first link: The article has complaints that are over 2 years old.

It admits that the investigators were granted full access to information regarding 9/11.

Its major complaints concern political wrangling, the slowness of bureaucracies, and the evils of the airline industry for allegedly placing revenues above security.

It does not even hint at conspiratorial plottings or cover-ups.

[Garrette]

Reference your second link: With one exception, there are no references, just vague assertions that "authors" et al have talked about complicity.

The exception is a reference to Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright's autobiography. The quotation, however, is not at all about conspiracies but about alleged negligence. The two are polar opposites.

You should read what you post.

[thesyntaxera]

Reference your first link: The article has complaints that are over 2 years old.

It admits that the investigators were granted full access to information regarding 9/11.

Its major complaints concern political wrangling, the slowness of bureaucracies, and the evils of the airline industry for allegedly placing revenues above security.

It does not even hint at conspiratorial plottings or cover-ups.

I never said there was a conspiracy.

[kookbreaker]

I never said there was a conspiracy.

You just reject all the evidence that indicates that there wasn't one.

Gotcha.

[thesyntaxera]

Translation:

I still have no answer to the valid points raised nor comments on the inconsistencies and inaccuracies within my own posts. However, I retain the capacity and willingness to string words together in such a fashion as to provide the uninformed with the illusion I am arguing coherently when in fact I have said nothing of substance.


and where is all this substance coming from your end...all I see is a bunch of skepdics stroking each others ego with the intent of not thinking, just reacting....

[thesyntaxera]

You just reject all the evidence that indicates that there wasn't one.

Gotcha.


and what evidence is that? Are you refering to all that evidence that was guessed into existence, by people like you.

[kookbreaker]

and what evidence is that? Are you refering to all that evidence that was guessed into existence, by people like you.

Obviously you have been reading a different thread than the rest of us.

[kookbreaker]

and where is all this substance coming from your end...all I see is a bunch of skepdics stroking each others ego with the intent of not thinking, just reacting....

Boo-hoo, your lack of producing anything tangible has caught up with you and your going to blame us for your failure. Maybe if you had a clue as to what you are talking about, rather than trying to throw out terms you don't understand you might have gotten somewhere.

[Garrette]

I never said there was a conspiracy.

Got it. No conspiracy.

I guess that leaves your only complaint being the quality of the investigation regarding which all your claims to date have been shown to be inaccurate yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

[quote=thesyntaxera]and where is all this substance coming from your end...all I see is a bunch of skepdics stroking each others ego with the intent of not thinking, just reacting....

I believe you when you say this is all you see. You have manifestly ignored the specific refutations and citations of the skeptics in this thread.

I thank you for admitting that you are blinded to evidence.

Though I rather think I was correct in an earlier post when I called you a troll. You could just be a fool, though.

[Year Zero]

Clearly there HAS to be some kind of conspiracy if the government and all the media is lying about almost every detail of 9-11.

[Garrette]

I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!

[Flaherty]

Hello, one of my hobbies is busting conspiracy theories, particularly those surrounding events. The 9-11 event has spawned a massive avalanche of crackpots and their logically-challenged theories involving remote-control planes, planes shooting missiles, and of course, those demolitions installed before the fateful day. Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations.


Back in graduate school 10 years ago, I got interested in the various conspiracy theories involving the Federal Reserve and put some conspiracy-busting stuff on the internet. I don't maintain a web site any longer, but someone evidently is storing the essays I wrote here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

[Ed]

I am curious about facts, and why a deductive, fact gathering investigation wasn't done.

You use this term like a mantra. Why is that? Can you see other ways an investigation might have been performed? Have you ever, anywhere, ever heard people performing an investigation use the term? Are there not deductive elements necessary in any investigation? Is this the only thing that would be acceptable to you? Does the fact that this approach direct you to absurd conclusions like 30 year old mortar mixed explosives give you pause?

Your behavior and thought processes lead me to deduce some things about you. Because the process is "valid" do you think that my deductions are too? If not, why not?

I am curious as to why there was an apparent gloss over of the environmental disaster that was the aftermath of 9/11.

Tell me, do you not look and then say "OMG, they didn't ..."? And now that I prove that this contention is codswallop, does your theory get altered in the slightest?

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/

One among 1,480,000 hits on "wtc environment 9/11"

I am curious to know why you fanatical skepterroists don't question an official story with so many holes in it.

Because 1) it is not clear that the "holes" are anything more than your own wishful thinking and 2) the alternative is absurd.

The only way a skeptic can not do this is by making absurd rationalizations to back up what they have chosen to believe.

Provide one clear and unequivical "hole" and one absurd rationalization.




You have no real facts either, and the few little facts you have, are just as questionable as a CT's claims.


Planes, Bin Ladens confession, numerous engineers explaining exactly how events transpired.

Sorry, wrong.
[/QUOTE]

[thesyntaxera]

You use this term like a mantra. Why is that? Can you see other ways an investigation might have been performed? Have you ever, anywhere, ever heard people performing an investigation use the term? Are there not deductive elements necessary in any investigation? Is this the only thing that would be acceptable to you? Does the fact that this approach direct you to absurd conclusions like 30 year old mortar mixed explosives give you pause?
Your behavior and thought processes lead me to deduce some things about you. Because the process is "valid" do you think that my deductions are too? If not, why not?
Tell me, do you not look and then say "OMG, they didn't ..."? And now that I prove that this contention is codswallop, does your theory get altered in the slightest?
One among 1,480,000 hits on "wtc environment 9/11"
Because 1) it is not clear that the "holes" are anything more than your own wishful thinking and 2) the alternative is absurd.
Provide one clear and unequivical "hole" and one absurd rationalization.
Planes, Bin Ladens confession, numerous engineers explaining exactly how events transpired.

Sorry, wrong.

My behavior and thought processes lead you to do what? You cannot possibly deduce anything about me, you have no idea who I am, nor to you have a close intimate knowledge of me to base any deduction on...even if you did, you are still making a guess because drawing conclusions about people is the worst kind of induction there is. There is nothing valid about your "investigation"...you have read some posts, and think you have me all figured out...that is induction.

I don't have a theory.


Clear holes...in the links that were provided....WTC7 no building steel saved...only 200 peices of WTC 1,2....no plane at the pentagon...and no way to tell....the NIST didn't investigate steel until several years later, how much we don't know....this epa report....2004....long time to wait and remove 500,000 tons of carcinogenic/radioactive particulate matter.....

My problem...all of the things that would disprove conspiracy are lacking in official detail or weren't explained at all...

Absurd rationalization-that the pile of circumstantial evidence/leads doesn't mean anything because a group of skeptics have determined independently with no evidence at their disposal other than official web site claims that nothing but the official story took place.

Your nothing but guessers yourselves...accept it and move on....the only thing keeping you and CT freaks seperated is your stance on the issue, and the fact that you prize your intellect/logical ability over everything else. As far as I can tell, if you are making guesses, there is no logic involved....there is no deduction, just questions...that why so many people beat this drum...they want answers...even if the end result is that Bush Inc. was right all along...

it just needs to be proven better.

[Year Zero]

All your claims have been debunked already, and you keep repeating them over and over. How can you possibly impress us?

[Ed]

Without a theory all you have, at best, are random factoids.

[kookbreaker]

My behavior and thought processes lead you to do what? You cannot possibly deduce anything about me, you have no idea who I am, nor to you have a close intimate knowledge of me to base any deduction on...even if you did, you are still making a guess because drawing conclusions about people is the worst kind of induction there is. There is nothing valid about your "investigation"...you have read some posts, and think you have me all figured out...that is induction.


From our own experience, we can deduce a lot about you. You use of a bogus budget figure for the investigation, for example. Even more telling was your subsequent rejection of the figures given to you. Inductive or not, that speaks volumes about your nature and what you are rally after.


I don't have a theory.


However, you are far more willing to attack the work of experienced engineers than the ramblings of website cranks.

Your 'points' have been answered, you just don't like the answers.

[Manny]

Clear holes...in the links that were provided....WTC7 no building steel saved...only 200 peices of WTC 1,2....no plane at the pentagon...and no way to tell....the NIST didn't investigate steel until several years later, how much we don't know....this epa report....2004....long time to wait and remove 500,000 tons of carcinogenic/radioactive particulate matter.....

My problem...all of the things that would disprove conspiracy are lacking in official detail or weren't explained at all...

Absurd rationalization-that the pile of circumstantial evidence/leads doesn't mean anything because a group of skeptics have determined independently with no evidence at their disposal other than official web site claims that nothing but the official story took place.

What you seem to be missing is the element of common sense and the burden of proof. Planes hit the Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is undisputed (yes, even for the Pentagon -- people who don't believe that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon should be disregarded as, at absolute best, idiots. Hundreds of people saw the plane. Passengers on the plane reported its flight path in real time. The flight data recorder was recovered.) The mechanics of how the towers fell is well understood. Skeptics, whatever silly re-spelling you choose to apply to them, are always interested in evidence, but there is NO evidence to ANY of the various conspiracy theories. Skeptics run the political gamut from left to right to radical to nonpolitical -- you can be quite sure that if any of the various theories had even tantalizing bits of evidence which would make the President or the prior President or anyone else look bad at least some skeptics would be all over it. All the stuff you're bringing up (without even having the stones to claim agreement with) has been gone over many times by many experts and interested lay people. For pretty much all of it, there's just nothing to it.

Some criticisms do seem to hold water, but only with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Yes, the airlines were concerned about the cost of impassible cockpit doors and yes, they underestimated their usefulness. But remember, the "old" way of dealing with a hijacker was to cooperate. Under the old FAA regs, a pilot was supposed to cooperate with a hijacker in hopes of saving the lives of the people on the plane. So under that circumstance an impassible cockpit door indeed seems like an unnecessary expenditure; a pilot would agree to open the cockpit door and let the hijacker in if for no other reason than to facilitate communication between the hijacker and negotiators on the ground. And yes, the EPA might not have done as good a job taking air samples as they ought to have and/or applied a different standard than one might choose. It strains credulity for them to say that the level of airborne petrochemicals was undetectable when we were walking to work through the stench of plastic. But whatever that level was, it was less than one would encounter on the New Jersey Turnpike or along the chemical plants of Houston on a "normal" day -- I've experienced all three sources. And even if one applies hindsight retroactively none of the "legitimate" criticisms point to any kind of conspiracy, nor do they point to any other cause than the one which you so derisively call the "official" version -- on the morning of September 11, 2001 a group of very bad men hijacked four commercial airliners and successfully steered them into three targets without the prior knowledge of anyone in government.

[thesyntaxera]

All your claims have been debunked already, and you keep repeating them over and over. How can you possibly impress us?

Ooh, the question should be...why would I want to impress you...?

[thesyntaxera]

Without a theory all you have, at best, are random factoids.


Thats right....just about the same as what you got isn't it?

[Ed]

Thats right....just about the same as what you got isn't it?

No. You are the one with the preposterous claims. I have knowledgeable, stable people who are well versed in their disiplines. I have a cogent story that does not require elaborate (nd unstated) frameworks to be at all plausable. In short, I am operating in the real world.

[Year Zero]

Ooh, the question should be...why would I want to impress you...?


The question is, why do you continue to repeat things you know are false. It is a proven fact that plane debris including flight recorders WERE FOUND in the Pentagon. You simply ignore that, among other facts. Why should we take you seriously?

[Garrette]

Be nice, Year Zero.

He did post two links.

Of course, they did not in any fashion support his position, but he posted them nonetheless.

[thesyntaxera]

From our own experience, we can deduce a lot about you. You use of a bogus budget figure for the investigation, for example. Even more telling was your subsequent rejection of the figures given to you. Inductive or not, that speaks volumes about your nature and what you are rally after.

Actually, you can't...obviously you don't understand deduction, which would explain a lot about why your head is soo big and thick, and why, like teflon, all of these points don't seem to stick.

I didn't reject the figures...the figures if I remember right were for an investigation begun in 2004...not the 9/11 commision. If I argued with you it was because even though X-million was ear marked for the commision, that doesn't mean that all of it was spent, and since you have yet to point out how much was actually spent...(something I don't think you will find out, although I could be wrong) what am I left to believe? You?

It should speak volumes you creature of poor reasoning. I don't pass blanket judgements based on text.

However, you are far more willing to attack the work of experienced engineers than the ramblings of website cranks.

Your 'points' have been answered, you just don't like the answers.

I will attack it because by the engineers own admission the building should not have fallen the way it did. The entire building if you are familiar with it's design was created specifically to cancel the effects of a fire no matter what. Most of the fuel blew up on impact, what was left should have smoldered out due to the flame retardant regulations on office equipment, and building materials. By all pictoral accounts it did just that, the photo that you all criticized featuring the "woman" in the hole...there should be a raging inferno in there clearly visible. The engineers had to use inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion they didn't think was possible because the official story demanded it...

And any follow investigation is woefully lacking in the evidence department. 200 pieces of steel? For the whole event?

If I don't like the answers it's because your answers suck.

[Year Zero]

Actually the engineers in question ALL believed the buildings would collapse.

[kookbreaker]

Actually, you can't...obviously you don't understand deduction, which would explain a lot about why your head is soo big and thick, and why, like teflon, all of these points don't seem to stick.


I see your mostly up to posturing.


I didn't reject the figures...


Yes you did. You claimed they made no report,then implied that they had not spent their budget. Both unfounded claims to dodge the fact that you were wrong


the figures if I remember right were for an investigation begun in 2004...not the 9/11 commision.


Irrelevant. Your initial point was to claim that virtually nothing was spent on the investigation of 9/11, when in fact ther was much spent on it!


If I argued with you it was because even though X-million was ear marked for the commision, that doesn't mean that all of it was spent, and since you have yet to point out how much was actually spent...(something I don't think you will find out, although I could be wrong) what am I left to believe? You?

You are left to believe who you want. The point is that you tried to put up a deceptive claim and got burned on it. Badly. I don't really have figures for exaclty how much was spent, but it was much, much more than you were claiming.


It should speak volumes you creature of poor reasoning. I don't pass blanket judgements based on text.


I do pass judegement on fools who try to decieve, then reufse to admit their were grossly in error.


I will attack it because by the engineers own admission the building should not have fallen the way it did.


That is completely wrong. You should know this by now. But I think you prefer willful ignorance.


The entire building if you are familiar with it's design was created specifically to cancel the effects of a fire no matter what.


Uh. No. It was not designed to be hit with several ton, hunreds-of-mile-per-hour fireball. It was design to withstand an accidental hit from a plane (one not going full throttle and full of fuel), it was designed to be protected from fires that start internally. That was all.


Most of the fuel blew up on impact,


Wrong, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of physics and chemistry. Fuel in packed liquid form does not blow up that way.


what was left should have smoldered out due to the flame retardant regulations on office equipment, and building materials.


If you had read the reports given to you, the flame retardant material on the building were blown off by the impact. The level of fire retardance in ofice equipment is not as strong as you might like.


By all pictoral accounts it did just that,


It seems to me that you are saying there was no fire. Interesting. So all the people who managed to escape are liars. All the people who jumped to escaped the flames deluded. Really.


the photo that you all criticized featuring the "woman" in the hole...there should be a raging inferno in there clearly visible.


I can see fires to the right of the scar and above it. The rest in darkness, probably smoke. What are you expecting? Is the flame level not to your satisfaction?


The engineers had to use inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion they didn't think was possible because the official story demanded it...


The engineers know what happened based on their century old professions' knowledge of materials and their limitations. No looking at a single photo and saying there isn't enough fire for their liking.


And any follow investigation is woefully lacking in the evidence department. 200 pieces of steel? For the whole event?


Do you have any more pieces that were damaged by fire and you know the original location of? They could have tested unheated metal all year, but what good would that do?


If I don't like the answers it's because your answers suck.

My answers are backed by pretty much every structrual engineer on this planet. The best you can do is point to a photo and say there isn't enough flame for your tastes, oh, and you can lie and waffle about budgets.

[thesyntaxera]

Yes you did. You claimed they made no report,then implied that they had not spent their budget. Both unfounded claims to dodge the fact that you were wrong

I personally don't believe I ever adamantly claimed anything...I did recite other CT claims after stating that I am not latched onto them.


Irrelevant. Your initial point was to claim that virtually nothing was spent on the investigation of 9/11, when in fact ther was much spent on it!

a lot of money was allocated, that doesn't mean it was all spent...where does it say what the final cost was VS. the budget?

You are left to believe who you want. The point is that you tried to put up a deceptive claim and got burned on it. Badly. I don't really have figures for exaclty how much was spent, but it was much, much more than you were claiming.

I didn't put up any deceptive claims to be burned with, I cited others claims, stated I did not adhere to them, and then asked you dorks to debunk them...you just couldn't resist the urge to make this a personal assault on me because of your poorly preconcieved notion of who I am and what I represent.

I do pass judegement on fools who try to decieve, then reufse to admit their were grossly in error.

Again, I never tried to decieve, if you were reading closely from post one, you would know this. I never refused, but I did maintain my argument from the only position that can be argued.



That is completely wrong. You should know this by now. But I think you prefer willful ignorance.

Probably, I suppose.


Uh. No. It was not designed to be hit with several ton, hunreds-of-mile-per-hour fireball. It was design to withstand an accidental hit from a plane (one not going full throttle and full of fuel), it was designed to be protected from fires that start internally. That was all.

but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.

Wrong, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of physics and chemistry. Fuel in packed liquid form does not blow up that way.

Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.


If you had read the reports given to you, the flame retardant material on the building were blown off by the impact. The level of fire retardance in ofice equipment is not as strong as you might like.

Really, all of it? Why is there flame retardant on the outside? Isn't steel and glass flame retardant already? Or are you refering to the asbestos that covered the steel in the core of one of the buildings? As far as the office/building materials...I am well aware of their perfromance, having held a job at HON manufacturing them during my early college days. First off for this line of logic to be accurate you would have to throw out all the test trials proving how flame retardant the material is, and would then have to say that there is a conspiracy in the flame retardant office furniture business that involves them putting out poor quality office supplies that burn like the dickens.

It seems to me that you are saying there was no fire. Interesting. So all the people who managed to escape are liars. All the people who jumped to escaped the flames deluded. Really.

Yeah right brain, thats what I am saying:rolleyes: There was obviously a fire, just one that doesn't seem strong enough to bring down one building let alone 3...not to say it wasn't...maybe it was the fire in building 7 than made it all fall down simultaneously like a demolition?

I can see fires to the right of the scar and above it. The rest in darkness, probably smoke. What are you expecting? Is the flame level not to your satisfaction?

Yeah, it probably is smoke...but smoke tends to hang above the fire, not in it..there should be roaring flames visible at the bottom.

The engineers know what happened based on their century old professions' knowledge of materials and their limitations. No looking at a single photo and saying there isn't enough fire for their liking.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames

While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.

Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.


I'll let you read through the whole article when you feel like it.


and read this to its a pretty in depth dissection of the claim that steel was melted by jet fuel....make sure you got your Nix comb handy.

Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/cache/usyd1.html).

[kookbreaker]

I personally don't believe I ever adamantly claimed anything...I did recite other CT claims after stating that I am not latched onto them.


With comments like the one below, I'd say you are pretty attached to that idea:


a lot of money was allocated, that doesn't mean it was all spent...where does it say what the final cost was VS. the budget?


Q.E.D.

You are not showing the signs of a person wanting to learn things.


I didn't put up any deceptive claims to be burned with, I cited others claims, stated I did not adhere to them, and then asked you dorks to debunk them...you just couldn't resist the urge to make this a personal assault on me because of your poorly preconcieved notion of who I am and what I represent.


Boo-hoo. You are pretned to be an intellectual conspiracy agnositc when you use claims that just scream CT. You list off factoids like a JFK buff and then ignore the replies.

<snippage.


but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.


Impacts, yes. Again you have been ignoring the info we have been given you. The impacts, solely, were not what brought down the tower. It was the impact, combined with the fire, that resulted in the failure.


Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.

To say that was all the fuel is ignorant. The fireball, while very impressive, was nowhere near all the fuel in the plane. Hollywood pyrotechnicians make explosions larger than that all the time and they sure as heck aren't using 90,000 litres of fuel to make them!

So yes, fuel explodes, it cannot explode all of it at once. By your physics a molotov cocktail would explode in a fireball and leave no pool of flame!


Really, all of it? Why is there flame retardant on the outside? Isn't steel and glass flame retardant already? Or are you refering to the asbestos that covered the steel in the core of one of the buildings?


Yes.


As far as the office/building materials...I am well aware of their perfromance, having held a job at HON manufacturing them during my early college days. First off for this line of logic to be accurate you would have to throw out all the test trials proving how flame retardant the material is, and would then have to say that there is a conspiracy in the flame retardant office furniture business that involves them putting out poor quality office supplies that burn like the dickens.

Flame retardant materials are assuming normal causes of ignition. This was not a normal cause. You still have no sense of scale.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm

"The typical WTC office workstation furnishings were able to sustain intense fires for at least an hour on a given WTC floor."

They burned. Deal with it.


Yeah right brain, thats what I am saying:rolleyes: There was obviously a fire, just one that doesn't seem strong enough to bring down one building let alone 3


By your judgement...looking at a single picture from the outside.


...not to say it wasn't...maybe it was the fire in building 7 than made it all fall down simultaneously like a demolition?


WTC7 didn't fall like a demolition. It showed serious failures around the penthouse well before the full collapse. It also had one heck of a fire raging in it.


Yeah, it probably is smoke...but smoke tends to hang above the fire, not in it..there should be roaring flames visible at the bottom.


When smoke has limited places to go (as in when inside a building) it tends to stick around and obscure things. There are two rather hefty fires burning in that pic that I can see. Why is there no ragin inferno right there. I cannot be certain, but if that is the entry point then


There are plenty of shots on the internet showing lots of flame.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

You are quoting an effing economist as an authority?


Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames"


Wow. 'Did Not Appear to be extensive and intense enough'. There are so many erronious assumpitions in that last sentence. But hey! He must no more than firemen and structural engineers! He's an economist!


"While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. "


'Did not appear'. Wow. Apparently out supereconomist ahs X-ray vision.


"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. "


Our economist seems to feel that moving debris in hopes of finding survivors was a sinister act on the part of FEMA.


FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.

So they tagged the debris? Assuming this is true, what of it? This seems like generic issue paranoia.


I'll let you read through the whole article when you feel like it.


Why don't you read this instead:

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

as well as:

http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_temperature.html

and:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

and the links here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

and perhaps:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf

But, none of that can be true! An Economist said the damage and fire didn't look too bad!


and read this to its a pretty in depth dissection of the claim that steel was melted by jet fuel....make sure you got your Nix comb handy.

The steel was not melted. Why do you persist in making that mistake?

[Flange Desire]

SNIPPETY SNIP SNIP
My problem...all of the things that would disprove conspiracy are lacking in official detail or weren't explained at all...
SNIP SNIP


... and the God Of The Gaps makes a not-quite-surprise appearance.

There is no need to "disprove conspiracy".
Properly, the onus is on the claimant (in this case, the CT) to provide credible evidence to support the incredible claim.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!

Is it possible that David Copperfield made the WTC towers disappear?
:confused:

[patchbunny]

but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.
The level of ignorance in this sentence is staggering. :eye-poppi

Perhaps you can provide a list of all structural columns that failed on the WTC as a result of wind loads over the last 30 years? There must have been quite a few.

[Year Zero]

Is it possible that David Copperfield made the WTC towers disappear?
:confused:


Holy CRAP!!! We haven't heard anything from Copperfield for years....now we know why.

[CurtC]

Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.Just to follow up on this point, the fuel did not all blow up at once because it is fuel, not an explosive. Do you know the difference? I'll give you a hint - it's something to do with oxygen.

[Starthinker]

Holy CRAP!!! We haven't heard anything from Copperfield for years....now we know why.

I know I coveted his wife for many years.

[orphia nay]

Any ideas on how to get out of one of these debates gracefully?

I'm on page 16 of posts at the forum I mentioned where I'm vastly outnumbered and despite my own logical, independent thought (IMHO :wink:) it's been devolving into an insult match. Now one of the CTs has cut and pasted the whole of this page into the thread:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

and I don't know if I've got the patience to address each point.

I've already been accused of having my head in the sand about the whole theory. I replied by saying they had their heads in clouds of bong smoke, and a moderator went ballistic.

This debate is addictive, but I just don't know if I'm that addicted. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I know I coveted his wife for many years.

http://www.segginger.net/Good_Pictures/claudia_schiffer/pictures/Claudia_Schiffer01.jpg

[Kevin_Lowe]

I just had a flash of insight. Of sorts.

I think it likely that what thesockpuppeteera means when it says "inductive" and "deductive" is something like "post hoc" and "open minded". It's complaining that the investigation (in its mind anyway) assumed the truth of the conventional story and sought to explain it, rather than approaching the whole affair as a mystery and searching for evidence of conspiracies.

It would almost be a valid point, if there had been any evidence that something weird had occurred in the first place.

For the record, no, I have never encountered anybody else using the terms this way. I'm not sure if it's a WTC-kook thing or a this-particular-kook thing but either way it's not normal use of the language in any branch of academia I'm familiar with.

[orphia nay]

Just re-read this post:



Have a look at this page, (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html) which includes pictures of the aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon.



Thanks. That's a handy link. The webfairy link to 'smokingguns' I just posted alleges that no plane hit the Pentagon, yet the CTs had earlier posted links to whatreallyhappened.com. They don't know what to believe, except anything but the 'official version'. They're so special, just not in the way they think they are.

[patchbunny]

Just re-read this post:

Thanks. That's a handy link. The webfairy link to 'smokingguns' I just posted alleges that no plane hit the Pentagon, yet the CTs had earlier posted links to whatreallyhappened.com. They don't know what to believe, except anything but the 'official version'. They're so special, just not in the way they think they are.
I've always found the plane-shaped impact scar on the pantagon to be rather convincing of an aircraft hit. The fuselage penetrated, but the wings had trouble and generally just blew out the infill walls. On the columns you can follow the line of the wings.

[patchbunny]

Any ideas on how to get out of one of these debates gracefully?
I think The Central Scrutinizer posted a lovely beach photo that may serve as a distraction.


I'm on page 16 of posts at the forum I mentioned where I'm vastly outnumbered and despite my own logical, independent thought (IMHO :wink:) it's been devolving into an insult match. Now one of the CTs has cut and pasted the whole of this page into the thread:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

and I don't know if I've got the patience to address each point.
I'm confused. Was the 9/11 attacks so we could cover-up pentagon accounting errors, or so we could install a pipeline in Afghanistan?

Some of the points are just stupid. "Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse." This supports a conspiracy why?

Found a link the other day showing police shooting a man armed with a knife that charged them. He was shot repeatedly with pistol and shotgun fire. Comments on the film protested the police's "trigger happy" attitude because they didn't try shooting the knife out of his hand or just shoot him once. Some folks just have no connection with reality.

These people grab any little detail and use it to support their position, regardless of how weak it is becasue in their mind, "The government never makes mistakes, and any mistake is sign of a conspiracy." I worked for the DoD for over three years, and I know they aren't perfect. Shall I tell you of the time an Air Force Colonel was convinced that the only reason the trains blew their whistles at the road crossing by the base was to annoy the base residents? And we had a railroad representative come out and explain the relevant laws and regulations regarding railroad crossings and roads? And when all was said and done, he still didn't buy it?

There comes a time when you just smile and walk away, and a time when you laugh so hard you blow your drink out your nose all over their "The Truth is Out There" T-shirt. That time has come, IMHO. You will never convince them otherwise, and only serves a purpose if you like wrestling with pigs in the mud. Which makes me wonder why I've been posting the way I have been lately, as I hate pigs and mud. :confused:

At any rate, my point has been made. You can refute all you want. It isn't going to get you anywhere.

[orphia nay]

That's a good point, patchbunny, thanks for your comment.

Pity they'll only believe a point if it's got a website attached, and then even rarely. :rolleyes: That's why I'm getting nowhere at the moment, because I've been just using reasoning to debate them. They were the ones to start the thread and make the claim that bombs were used at the WTC. I'm not about to accept the shifting of the burden of proof onto me, but there may come a time when some of the links posted here might come in handy.

Speaking of which, does anyone remember where to find the post/link (controlleddemolition.com or something similar) about it taking weeks to set up a controlled demolition of a multi-storey building? I've been searching but can't find anything. I can find this:

In the months prior to blow down day up to 40 Controlled Demolition Group staff soft stripped and pre-weakened the buildings, removing hazardous asbestos and asbestos contaminated artex using revolutionary safety techniques developed by the company.
at this page (http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosive_template/explosive.asp?Content=../../content_library/ex_case_studies.asp~high)
but I thought the one I was looking for had more detail about installing the explosives. I hope the link wasn't at bautforum because that's making my old version of explorer crash.

[orphia nay]

I think The Central Scrutinizer posted a lovely beach photo that may serve as a distraction.


I'm confused. Was the 9/11 attacks so we could cover-up pentagon accounting errors, or so we could install a pipeline in Afghanistan?

Some of the points are just stupid. "Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse." This supports a conspiracy why?

Found a link the other day showing police shooting a man armed with a knife that charged them. He was shot repeatedly with pistol and shotgun fire. Comments on the film protested the police's "trigger happy" attitude because they didn't try shooting the knife out of his hand or just shoot him once. Some folks just have no connection with reality.

These people grab any little detail and use it to support their position, regardless of how weak it is becasue in their mind, "The government never makes mistakes, and any mistake is sign of a conspiracy." I worked for the DoD for over three years, and I know they aren't perfect. Shall I tell you of the time an Air Force Colonel was convinced that the only reason the trains blew their whistles at the road crossing by the base was to annoy the base residents? And we had a railroad representative come out and explain the relevant laws and regulations regarding railroad crossings and roads? And when all was said and done, he still didn't buy it?

There comes a time when you just smile and walk away, and a time when you laugh so hard you blow your drink out your nose all over their "The Truth is Out There" T-shirt. That time has come, IMHO. You will never convince them otherwise, and only serves a purpose if you like wrestling with pigs in the mud. Which makes me wonder why I've been posting the way I have been lately, as I hate pigs and mud. :confused:

At any rate, my point has been made. You can refute all you want. It isn't going to get you anywhere.

:) :) Your points are great, and make much sense to me. I fear you are right about it not getting me anywhere, except it feeding my apparent addiction. Although my brain does get a nice workout, as well.

[patchbunny]

Speaking of which, does anyone remember where to find the post/link (controlleddemolition.com or something similar) about it taking weeks to set up a controlled demolition of a multi-storey building? I've been searching but can't find anything. I can find this:


at this page (http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosive_template/explosive.asp?Content=../../content_library/ex_case_studies.asp~high)
but I thought the one I was looking for had more detail about installing the explosives. I hope the link wasn't at bautforum because that's making my old version of explorer crash.
CDI is at http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?. I've seen Discovery or Nova specials with them before. You might try asking direct what help they can provide with some simple questions as to what goes into a demolition prep.

As a follow-up, I do know that it's not a matter of piling explosives next to a column or beam. You clear away the surrounding material first (i.e., all the material that hides that ugly steel frame), and (from what I"ve seen for steel) lay out carefully sized linear shaped charges to cut the steel. TNT "kicker" blocks are used to push the now cut bean out of the line of force so the building can't resettle on the column. You can tell if steel's been cut by a shaped charge by the copper traces left behind and the deformation patterns in the steel.

I don't doubt that shaped charges are also used for concrete, but I've not seen video of a concrete structure being prepped.

[orphia nay]

Thanks again. I think the info at the 55 Wood Street Building might be useful.

After two (2) months of preparation, CDI’s 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structure.

[thesyntaxera]

I just had a flash of insight. Of sorts.

I think it likely that what thesockpuppeteera means when it says "inductive" and "deductive" is something like "post hoc" and "open minded". It's complaining that the investigation (in its mind anyway) assumed the truth of the conventional story and sought to explain it, rather than approaching the whole affair as a mystery and searching for evidence of conspiracies.

It would almost be a valid point, if there had been any evidence that something weird had occurred in the first place.

For the record, no, I have never encountered anybody else using the terms this way. I'm not sure if it's a WTC-kook thing or a this-particular-kook thing but either way it's not normal use of the language in any branch of academia I'm familiar with.


wow, you better put that flash of insight under a lamp cover, it might get blown out by the stiff breeze created by the skeptical wind machines on here.

You are correct, and should I be at all surprised it took until page 8 for you genius' to finally grasp such a simple concept?

Its not normal use of the word? Is that what was hanging you up? Come now, it's just a word, you know the meaning...I think I even posted it...couldn't you in the land of infinte logic have extrapolated this sooner?

My point, to state it for the board again, is that because a deductive investigation wasn't done..ie they didn't disprove all other possibilities, CT is allowed to thrive. Every contention made in support of the official theory after the fact will only further the CT claims because there is no way to prove something wrong when there is nothing to prove it wrong with..

ok, is the group still together? nobody got lost?

and on we go:

you would rather complain about Ct'ers than actually analyze the problems within the case itself. it must give your ego a nice boost to stomp all over the false assumptions of others, that said, it's no wonder why you all have reacted the way you did to some simple questions...

any amount of evidence will always be subverted when a government is secretive in anyway, and you can't deny that this government was secretive in almost every way.

thats why I asked, why not 1 photo of a plane hitting the pentagon, why not release the sealed photo's...etc...

they could end the controversy very easily, and they don't....this isn't suspect to you all I imagine, because your busy rationalizing why a government that is "by the people, for the people" needs to keep secrets from them.

the reason it is important in this case is simple as well...

you know were in a war right?

you know everything we have done regarding this war has been affected by this event?

I don't suppose the civillian casualty figures came up while you were frantically trying to locate the exact budget for the NIST investigation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is at odds with us, because of the people in question, and your too busy trying to prove there isn't a NWO to notice that there is a power elite messing things up for everyone.

All conspiracy talk aside, if there had been a legitimate investigation we might have found out a lot faster that they are completely f-ed and are completely f-ing everything up, and we as voters and citizens would have been more equipt to deal with it...instead we get to watch it unravel over 8 years...and then deal with the consequences.

meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.

have fun.

[Flange Desire]

Every contention made in support of the official theory after the fact will only further the CT claims because there is no way to prove something wrong when there is nothing to prove it wrong with..

Seems you have used the word 'theory' in an incorrect context
(but then again it is pretty hard to tell as the whole post if fairly incoherant).

you know were in a war right?

No.

meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.

Your xenocentricity is showing, and it seems your fulcrum may have slipped.

[Year Zero]

Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts. Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.

[Garrette]

Flange, I have no choice but to conclude that you are not a good american.

How despicable.

[Year Zero]

I for one am sick of people pretending that you have to believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories to oppose the administration or its war in Iraq. This is complete nonsense. If anything this actually distracts from the very real problems of US foreign policy. After all, if our own government conspires to kill thousands of its citizens, we don't have to reevaluate our policies of involvement in the Middle East. Then again, we couldn't really fight such a powerful government either, so we might as well sit on our collective ass, watch TV, and talk about the conspiracy on the Internet. Hopefully the government agents won't take us out for doing so.

I was against a war on Iraq long before anyone else started complaining, simply because the very premise is idiotic, they were clearly not connected with Al Qaeda, and it was clear that it would be a strategic headache. When I was in the army, around the time of 9-11, we were already beginning the transformation into a lighter, more rapidly deployable force designed to handle small, local conflicts(world police duties!). This was how many defense experts believed the wars of the future would look. Obviously, that is a bit short-sighted, but this is the direction the army was moving in. So essentially, moving in and conquering a country with conventional force was something the army was moving away from.

To date I don't know if they have had to severely alter those plans.

[love]

Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts.
That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

I thought that was fishy.

Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.
The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

What stops you subconscious believe seeing the evidence in front of your eyes is that to you the idea that knowing the government is conspiring against you is too dangerous. Your instincts take over to protect you.

That's what causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts, rather than the engagement of your own brain to analyze the evidence in front of you.

When I looked closely at the official story in order to construct a null hypothesis, I found that I simply could not make any consistent story out of the claims. The official story, is actually a patchwork of locally consistent stories, which completely fail to sit together globally.

The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

This is probably more than you can accept in one go. One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.

[patchbunny]

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything.
Translation: "I have made a complete and utter ass out of myself in the world press by making snap judgements before I have gotten off my ass and gathered what is known as "evidence". I'm going to shut up and go away before I embarrass myself further."

It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

I thought that was fishy.
I, too, find it fishy when people take the time to dig through the debris and study the evidence before drawing conclusions. What does the NTSB think they're doing, taking the time to examine plane wreckage and black boxes before issuing a conclusion as to what happened? They should know within hours.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I live in the real world where investigators, ya know, investigate.

The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.
OK, I've been sick for the last few days and I'm feeling pretty miserable. You're not helping matters my making me shoot peas from my nose. My sinuses have enough troubles.

[gtc]

The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

Why would they want us to think that it is dangerous to fly?



The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

Can you explain this? I can't understand what you mean by 'the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness'.


One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.

Can you explain how we will come to understand your perspective?

A further point, I don't understand why it was necessary to use explosives and planes.

Simply crashing two planes into the WTC and crashing two other planes would be a very spectacular event and enough to cause a fear of flying. Why would the added damage from exploding bombs be worth the expense and risk of detection?

[Year Zero]

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit.

They have experts on "terror attacks on buildings now"? Jesus that's specific. However, that was not what I called for. I said "DEMOLITIONS EXPERT".


He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

He probably withdrew the statement because he read the reports, and trusted architectural engineers were more qualified in that field than he with his "Terror attacks on Buildings" degree.



The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you.

Who planned that? Have Imperial Japanese navy pilots infiltrated our government? Do you have any idea how important our airline industry is? Do you know what happens to the economy when people won't fly? Trying to get people not to fly in this country is not simply shooting yourself in the foot. It is aiming a Vickers machine gun at your foot and firing until there is no more foot to shoot at...then shooting the other foot...then blowing yourself up with a grenade...while someone crashes a plane into you.


That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

Hmm... I think you might be on to something. Every time I look at a plane, my mind automatically thinks, "THAT'S A PLANE!!!" Pavlovian!


What stops you subconscious believe seeing the evidence in front of your eyes is that to you the idea that knowing the government is conspiring against you is too dangerous. Your instincts take over to protect you.

What evidence? I'm sorry I didn't see any evidence but then again, I might have been busy looking at a plane.


That's what causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts, rather than the engagement of your own brain to analyze the evidence in front of you.

What causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts is when conspiracy jackasses present idiotic alternative scenarios by presenting a conclusion and then using real or imagined "holes" in the original scenario as evidence.


When I looked closely at the official story in order to construct a null hypothesis, I found that I simply could not make any consistent story out of the claims.

I'll do it for you:

Planes hit buildings, cause catastrophic structural failure, buildings come down.



The official story, is actually a patchwork of locally consistent stories, which completely fail to sit together globally.

See above.


The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

They sure as hell can't affect us if they don't exist too.


This is probably more than you can accept in one go. One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.

If it turns out that I am one of those unfortunate souls whose mind inevitably rots due to schizophrenia(it's hereditary), and it may, I will consider believing in your conspiracy theory. However, till such time I will require evidence.

[patchbunny]

Why would they want us to think that it is dangerous to fly?
It's part of a grand conspiracy to wipe out the airlines' pension funds. Instead of going after Osama Bin Laden we should have gone after James Goodwin.

[thesyntaxera]

Seems you have used the word 'theory' in an incorrect context
(but then again it is pretty hard to tell as the whole post if fairly incoherant).


No.


Your xenocentricity is showing, and it seems your fulcrum may have slipped.

Pat yourself on the back Flange, you may have just been clever....wait no, sorry...

Theory is the proper term here. As there are no facts really, just inferences that seem most logical to you based on the presented information, that all comes from the official source(something that only prolongs conspiracy ramblings).

My xenocentricity? Awful big word to use, and what bearing does it have? If you want to run around prizing american pseudo culture thats fine...just try and appear as though you are not performing the robot while doing it.


As far as Demolitions experts....Zero, if you really want to base all this on what other people think after viewing the same video's CT's watch, then fine, do so, but as you probably know if you look long enough you will find conjectural opinions on anything. For example:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the “handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt” a symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work following the building collapses.

If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).

Personally, I think you guys should talk to some demolitions experts, instead just telling others to.

[thesyntaxera]

Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts. Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.

As I said, why don't you as well.

Because a typical demolition looks like these three building collapses, strikingly so. In fact most of the indications you make to the contrary are the clues that it was a demolition in the first place.

Explain how it was possible? Ok, if you have been researching this as long as you say then you should have heard multiple explanations on how it happened.

The leading one that can be verified is the number and frequency of emergency drills in the WTC. At some point power to whole sections of the building was shut down for an extended period of time, and people were evacuated temporarily.

Why a plane crash? Why not truck bombs? Didn't they try to bomb the basment once before and it didn't work? And wasn't a certain FBI agent ordered to stand down, and let the attack happen in that case, and didn't he even manage to get this order recorded to tape???


anyway like love said, the psychological impact is the biggest wave to emanate from this castrophe, regardless of preplanning or not...we all grabbed out flags and ran off to war...

[Year Zero]

As I said, why don't you as well.

Because a typical demolition looks like these three building collapses, strikingly so. In fact most of the indications you make to the contrary are the clues that it was a demolition in the first place.

Sorry but in the real world, lots of things LOOK like other things. A building collapse is going to look relatively the same regardless of whether it collapsed due to explosives or other causes. Do you know why? Because EXPLOSIVES ARE USED TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Thus what you are seeing in a controlled demolition is a building collapsing, not a building being destroyed by explosives.

What are the notable differences? THE EXPLOSIONS ARE visible from the outside.


Explain how it was possible? Ok, if you have been researching this as long as you say then you should have heard multiple explanations on how it happened.

No, there are none.


The leading one that can be verified is the number and frequency of emergency drills in the WTC. At some point power to whole sections of the building was shut down for an extended period of time, and people were evacuated temporarily.

First of all, we have to assume all this is true. Second, this does not leave enough time to do the job. Rigging a much smaller building for destruction may often take MONTHS. Third, you cannot simply put the explosives in and then blow the thing up. Holes have to be drilled, walls need to be knocked out, etc. People would notice.


Why a plane crash? Why not truck bombs? Didn't they try to bomb the basment once before and it didn't work? And wasn't a certain FBI agent ordered to stand down, and let the attack happen in that case, and didn't he even manage to get this order recorded to tape???

Oh I am sure some conspiracy writer SAID the FBI was given the order to stand down, and people not having remembered most of the coverage naturally assume this actually happened. However, how hard would it be to just blow the thing up and say, "Hey, they got a lot more explosives this time!!!" ? In short, if it is somehow unbelievable that planes crashing into buildings could lead to their total destruction, WHY WOULDN'T THE CONSPIRATORS THINK OF THAT?

The fact is that if 9-11 is some kind of conspiracy it would be the most elaborate one to date, involving hundreds of people if not more. Somehow, none of them squeal.



anyway like love said, the psychological impact is the biggest wave to emanate from this castrophe, regardless of preplanning or not...we all grabbed out flags and ran off to war...

Yeah Love also thinks that the government wants us to fear airplanes for some reason. Many people did the same in the beginning of Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc. What is your point?

[valis]

I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!


OMG I just realised I haven't been to New York since before 911!!!!!

How can I know if it really happened?

[thesyntaxera]

Sorry but in the real world, lots of things LOOK like other things. A building collapse is going to look relatively the same regardless of whether it collapsed due to explosives or other causes. Do you know why? Because EXPLOSIVES ARE USED TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Thus what you are seeing in a controlled demolition is a building collapsing, not a building being destroyed by explosives.

What are the notable differences? THE EXPLOSIONS ARE visible from the outside.

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.



No, there are none.

yes there are plenty of alternate timelines, you had to have seen them.



First of all, we have to assume all this is true. Second, this does not leave enough time to do the job. Rigging a much smaller building for destruction may often take MONTHS. Third, you cannot simply put the explosives in and then blow the thing up. Holes have to be drilled, walls need to be knocked out, etc. People would notice.

In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

Oh I am sure some conspiracy writer SAID the FBI was given the order to stand down, and people not having remembered most of the coverage naturally assume this actually happened.

they sure did, I think you are refering to alex jones, who makes a living selling his version of the truth based on actual documentation(it's how he has any credibility at all).


However, how hard would it be to just blow the thing up and say, "Hey, they got a lot more explosives this time!!!" ? In short, if it is somehow unbelievable that planes crashing into buildings could lead to their total destruction, WHY WOULDN'T THE CONSPIRATORS THINK OF THAT?

well then they would have to explain how after having one bombing in this fashion, nothing was done in the wake of it, and how they were able to get in and set that many explosives up in the first place.

why didn't the conspirators think about people questioning the use of planes?
why are you asking this? there were no conspirators. the planes were hijacked, they were flown into the buildings...

the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable. it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more. it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

The fact is that if 9-11 is some kind of conspiracy it would be the most elaborate one to date, involving hundreds of people if not more. Somehow, none of them squeal.

not really, the official story is just as crazy. compare...

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election, and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks. this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease, all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind. Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field defying all known countermeasures, due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI, as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks. Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.


.

[gtc]

In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

If all it takes is the cornerstone, then why wouldn't crashing an aeroplane be enough?


well then they would have to explain how after having one bombing in this fashion, nothing was done in the wake of it, and how they were able to get in and set that many explosives up in the first place.

Are you saying the people pushing the CT angle should show how that much explosives were able to be put in place?

the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable.

Are you distinguishing between the Bin Laden family and Osama Bin Laden? I think you will find the US government had become estranged with Osama over the years.

it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more.

How so, given the need to keep it hushed up from everyone, the sheer volume of explosives needed, the careful arrangement required and the need to keep it hidden from the people whose job it was to know what was in the WTC and why. I am thinking of security, maintenance, janitors, owners, lessees etc.

it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

Surely, it would be harder to keep a plot to place and detonate explosives hushed up than a plot to hijack and crash planes? If true, then not only did the conspiracy have to keep the preperations for the covering hijacks hushed up, they also had to keep the preperations for the bombings hushed up.

not really, the official story is just as crazy. compare...

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election,

Bush had only won the election in Nov 2000, that is not a large window of opportunity given we know the plans and training for the hijacking part of the operation was already underway before the election.

and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks.

They didn't do a very good job of the cover up, given that most, if not all the links were already in the public domain well before 911.

this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease,

But didn't you say earlier today that 911 was all about installing fear in the population, it can not work both ways.

all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind.

And yet, Bush was re elected along with fellow Republicans in other state and federal and local elections and Republican promoted referendum have also passed. It seems the American public accepts the agenda.

Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

Going so far as to wage a seriously 19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field[/quote]

They had more than 19 conspirators.

defying all known countermeasures,

As has been pointed out, most of the countermeasures were aimed against truck bombs on the ground and, in the air, the hijacking of planes for political purposes. This attack caught the agencies by surprise.

due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI,

People mess up. Pearl Harbour and any number of other attacks in the world wars testify to this. It is only in conspiracy theories that the authorities are omnipotent.

as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks.

How many wargames do you think they should be allowed to perform at any one time?

The number of wargames may be confusing to you, but it is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. I think you would find the same number of wargames taking place at any one point in time. The reason you don't see any mention of them is that they tend to be either secret or so routine as to be not worth mentioning. It is only after a significant event that people take any notice of them.

Think about this:

Soldiers who aren't actually fighting a war tend to be practicing. It keeps them out of trouble and gives them practice.

Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.

I don't see the point of this statement. Surely it makes sense to hide out in rough terrain that is impenitrable but controlled by groups who support your aims? Is it also crazy to think that those local groups would also tend to know their way around those same areas?


.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are correct, and should I be at all surprised it took until page 8 for you genius' to finally grasp such a simple concept?


Most posters here have a very good idea what "deductive" and "inductive" actually mean. So if you are going to make up your own definitions for these words it's not surprising nobody understands you, and it's your own fault. You might as well go to a science forum and start a thread where you use your own definitions of "joule" and "coulomb".


My point, to state it for the board again, is that because a deductive investigation wasn't done..ie they didn't disprove all other possibilities, CT is allowed to thrive.

thats why I asked, why not 1 photo of a plane hitting the pentagon, why not release the sealed photo's...etc...


What, they haven't released any footage of a major military asset taking a hit, showing in detail how the building is structured and what defences are in place against such impacts? I cannot think of any possible legitimate reason for the US government to keep that kind of information secret, can you?


I don't suppose the civillian casualty figures came up while you were frantically trying to locate the exact budget for the NIST investigation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is at odds with us, because of the people in question, and your too busy trying to prove there isn't a NWO to notice that there is a power elite messing things up for everyone.


The Politics forum here has had any number of relatively intelligent discussions of just these issues. The reason we are talking about 9/11 kookery in this particular thread is that you and your sock brought it up, see?


meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.


Here's news: not everybody on the internet is necessarily posting from within the borders of the USA.

I, for example, am an Australian citizen posting from Australia.

[kookbreaker]

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.


If you are talking about Romero, he never claimed the WTC was brought down with explosives. He merely said that the collapse resembled one. He's royally ticked off at having been misquoted as claiming otherwise

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y


Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."


So there you have it.


I thought that was fishy.


Of course, the Sinister Intelligence Agency is always to blame, rather than the sloppy, inept, prejudicial, imcompetent, self-serving reporting of the CT crowd.

[kookbreaker]

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.


So you still think steel doesn't weaken when heated. Such intellectual cowardice from you.

[Manny]

OMG I just realised I haven't been to New York since before 911!!!!!

How can I know if it really happened?The conspiracy is bigger than that. The fact is that not only did 9-11 never happen, but that the appearance of 9-11 was cooked up to cover the fact that the World Trade Center was never built at all! The Rockerfellers pocketed the construction funds, less enough money to make some plywood cutouts to convince rubes like you that the buildings were there. The mainstream media was in on the conspiracy of course, but now with the age of blogging upon us it was only a matter of time before some truth-seeker wanted to go to the "top" of the "buildings." So they had to come down. That's why only 200 beams were examined -- that's all there were to support the plywood mockups.

[Year Zero]

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.

They DID explain how the fall started. Second, if you look at what is left, you can see the "feet" seem to still be there.





In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

So now you are a demolitions expert?



they sure did, I think you are refering to alex jones, who makes a living selling his version of the truth based on actual documentation(it's how he has any credibility at all).

What documentation?




why didn't the conspirators think about people questioning the use of planes?
why are you asking this? there were no conspirators. the planes were hijacked, they were flown into the buildings...

Now you're being immature, pretending that you aren't advocating a theory.


the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable. it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more. it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

So they can engineer massive terrorist attacks that look like real ones, but Bill Clinton can't hide oral sex in the Oval Office. Sure.



a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election, and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks.


Our government has been doing this for years, the connections are not as solid as you think, thus this proves nothing.


this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease, all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind. Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

How does that prove they were behind the attack?


19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field defying all known countermeasures, due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI, as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks.

Again, get your facts straight. First, they were not under the command of Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Al Qaeda cells could pull off the Cole and Embassy bombings, as well as the one at Khobar towers, is it not possible that they could pull off hijackings, something that has been done by numerous terrorists many times since the end of WWII?


Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.

Believed by people that known little of Bin Laden, yes. Bin Laden is not the operational head of Al Qaeda, and probably never was. He is a financer and spokesman, and little else.

[patchbunny]

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet.
But that is exactly what your sources are stating. The building was wired top to bottom, every floor. (If there's some way of linking to a direct spot on a page, I have no idea what it is.) From here: (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)

"the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall."

"The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well [slicing steel into manageable lengths]. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”

"Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”

For the life of me, I still can't figure out how molten steel is a sign of explosives. Their arguments make no sense.

[thesyntaxera]

They DID explain how the fall started. Second, if you look at what is left, you can see the "feet" seem to still be there.

They did? Yeah, you mentioned that, planes hit the building...right...fires....gotcha, official mouthpiece. Those feet you are talking about could be anything, namely a pile of rubble, so your assertion that the whole bottom of the building must be demolished is wrong.



So now you are a demolitions expert?

Is that what I said? Maybe the problem here is that the words say one thing, and when you read they mean another.


What documentation?

You tell me, oh ye investigator. I would assume if you are interested in debunking guys like that you would check to see if they have sources...he claims that all of his material is backed up by official documentation "110%" which I assume to mean, that if I were to look into his kooky claims I might actually find the documentation he is talking about.



Now you're being immature, pretending that you aren't advocating a theory.

ha, I am advocating nothing, except a proper investigation.


So they can engineer massive terrorist attacks that look like real ones, but Bill Clinton can't hide oral sex in the Oval Office. Sure.

Once more, they didn't engineer anything, as far as I can tell they knew something was going to happen and let it, which to me is just as bad. Bill Clinton was the subject of a Right Wing smear campaign, or didn't you know that?

Our government has been doing this for years, the connections are not as solid as you think, thus this proves nothing.

I know, all too well. And the connections in this case are air tight, you giving a one sentence dismissal isn't going to change that....

How does that prove they were behind the attack?

again no one here said they were behind it, although the popular opinion in CT circles is that they are, and to remind you, NOTHING is being PROVED here. Not by you or me. All it does do is show who directly benefited from the political football this event became.

Again, get your facts straight. First, they were not under the command of Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Al Qaeda cells could pull off the Cole and Embassy bombings, as well as the one at Khobar towers, is it not possible that they could pull off hijackings, something that has been done by numerous terrorists many times since the end of WWII?

My facts straight? Excuse me? If Osama bin Laden is not the one most directly responsible for this then who is? Your contradicting yourself here. The Cole bombing was a boat that ran up along side and exploded, the us embassy was a truck bomb, as well as the Khobar towers, none of those are nearly as complex as this, 4 highjackings and years of planning??? Sure they could highjack them, but how many highjackers went to flight school?

Another thing that has stuck with me is that the fuel burning being the cause for the collapse was talked about by bin Laden in his supposed confession, where he stated that he knew the fuel would bring the towers down in the exact way they fell....however...most experts contend that it was a freak occurrance that shouldn't have happened even though it did.

Believed by people that known little of Bin Laden, yes. Bin Laden is not the operational head of Al Qaeda, and probably never was. He is a financer and spokesman, and little else.

And you know this how? So all the mujahadeen bull, and training by the cia never happened either then did it? The funny thing is that it did, and he was, although most likely not now....most likely dead....

For the life of me, I still can't figure out how molten steel is a sign of explosives. Their arguments make no sense.

Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly. Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.

quick story, my ladyfriends dad tore down an old barn. after all the good pieces of wood were taken out, he burned the rest in three large fire pits. The whole process took a month of spare time. After two weeks there was about 3 feet of ash in the bottom. Sometime later, he threw some more wood in the fire pits and went inside to eat. While eating we started to smell smoke. We go outside to find three fires smoldering. It turns out that the fire had never gone completely out, despite the rain, and despite being extinguished with water from a hose...those fires burned for two weeks on their own.

[patchbunny]

Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly.
And why would one use it, given that shaped charges are so much more precise and instantaneous?

Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.
So much for it being signs explosives were used.

quick story, my ladyfriends dad tore down an old barn. after all the good pieces of wood were taken out, he burned the rest in three large fire pits. The whole process took a month of spare time. After two weeks there was about 3 feet of ash in the bottom. Sometime later, he threw some more wood in the fire pits and went inside to eat. While eating we started to smell smoke. We go outside to find three fires smoldering. It turns out that the fire had never gone completely out, despite the rain, and despite being extinguished with water from a hose...those fires burned for two weeks on their own.
I learned this from Smokey the Bear some years ago. And it proves...?

[azazal]

Wow, just finished reading the 8 pages, and my brain hurts.

But here is something I've always wondered, CTs use the accounts of eye witnesses to show proof of demolition charges - Fire fighters hearing multiple explosions, people that were fleeing the buildings seeing molten steel, etc. Now granted I am sure these people are experts in their fields. I'm sure that the banker, lawyers, and financial gurus that were in the area on 9/11 are/were at the forefront of their respective fields. And one cannot question the bravery and dedication of the firefighters and police that were there that day; all train professionals in their jobs. But how many of these eyewitnesses were also trained in the use and execution of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy?

Yet, when experts in the fields of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy examine the evidence, and come to the overwhelming conclusion that no demolitions were used. The CT answer is always - they can’t be believed, because they’re part of the government cover-up.

So how is it that the people who work in the fields daily as their trained profession are wrong, and people under the most extreme duress possible making snap judgments about subjects that they have little or no training on, are correct?

Or am I just trying to be too logical?






PS - hope this doesn’t double post, the internet connection at work is acting screwy

[Year Zero]

They did? Yeah, you mentioned that, planes hit the building...right...fires....gotcha, official mouthpiece. Those feet you are talking about could be anything, namely a pile of rubble, so your assertion that the whole bottom of the building must be demolished is wrong.

You claimed that the buildings fell to fast, a number of your sources say this too. They claim that it would take explosives to do that, to take out the support of EVERY floor and put it into free fall. Ergo you if you support this you admit that every floor would have to be wired.






You tell me, oh ye investigator. I would assume if you are interested in debunking guys like that you would check to see if they have sources...he claims that all of his material is backed up by official documentation "110%" which I assume to mean, that if I were to look into his kooky claims I might actually find the documentation he is talking about.

Oh wow, he CLAIMS that!! And 110% why that's, MORE THAN 100%!! So he sure must be credible!





ha, I am advocating nothing, except a proper investigation.

You are not in the proper position to judge the initial one inadequate. Also, it is likely that if there were an official investigation again, you would just claim it was not credible.




Once more, they didn't engineer anything, as far as I can tell they knew something was going to happen and let it, which to me is just as bad. Bill Clinton was the subject of a Right Wing smear campaign, or didn't you know that?

You mean they let the terrorists rig the buildings with demolition charges and use remote control planes to fly....no forget it.




My facts straight? Excuse me? If Osama bin Laden is not the one most directly responsible for this then who is? Your contradicting yourself here. The Cole bombing was a boat that ran up along side and exploded, the us embassy was a truck bomb, as well as the Khobar towers, none of those are nearly as complex as this, 4 highjackings and years of planning??? Sure they could highjack them, but how many highjackers went to flight school?

I am not contradicting yourself, you simply know nothing of Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is for financial support, intelligence gathering, and training of loosely affiliated Wahhabist organizations and small cells. Bin Laden does not hand down orders on operations.

How many hijackers in the past, before 9-11 actually TOOK the wheel of the plane and piloted it? How many people do you need to pilot a plane? How qualified are you to explain how complicated a hijacking is since these things have happened a lot since WWII?


Another thing that has stuck with me is that the fuel burning being the cause for the collapse was talked about by bin Laden in his supposed confession, where he stated that he knew the fuel would bring the towers down in the exact way they fell....however...most experts contend that it was a freak occurrance that shouldn't have happened even though it did.

An outright lie. Qualified experts in that field DID expect the fire to contribute to the collapse.



And you know this how? So all the mujahadeen bull, and training by the cia never happened either then did it? The funny thing is that it did, and he was, although most likely not now....most likely dead....

Trained by the CIA? No, most Mujahadeen were trained by the Pakistani ISID, which received money and arms from the CIA and a number of countries. Bin Laden took care of his own training programs through his Services Bureau(Maktyab al-Khidimat or MAK). Any CIA support going to the MAK would have first come through the ISID.



Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly. Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.

Excuse me? Thermite is not a demolitions explosive. It is an incindiery used to destroy military equipment. I have personally seen Thermite in action and if you think that someone would use Thermite to demolish a building, especially if they wanted to do so secretly, you would have to be insane.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Ah good old Alex Jones. Alex is not a bad man, and I've always felt that he thinks he is telling the truth (as he sees it). He does a lot of good work for the community (at least he used to, I haven't been to Austin in years). He used to actually expose corruption in the local political arena. But ever since he went national he has gotten weirder and weirder.

Oh and by the way, "documenting" a conspiracy theory is easy. Since any good conspiracy theory is a combination of weird facts and extreme conjecture. The first half is easy to prove and the other half is just opinion (and you know what they say about those). Here I'll start my own conspiracy theory:

The US democracy has been usurped! An elite group of Irishmen are secretly controlling the United States and are slowing transforming it into a Mr. Potato Head Factory!

For evidence I supply the fact that the president is not elected by the people (at least not directly). That Mr. Potato Head's are being manufactured and sold at an ever increasing rate. That Irishmen people are over represented in police and fire departments.

Run for the hills!

LLH

[love]

Yet, when experts in the fields of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy examine the evidence, and come to the overwhelming conclusion that no demolitions were used. The CT answer is always - they can’t be believed, because they’re part of the government cover-up.

So how is it that the people who work in the fields daily as their trained profession are wrong, and people under the most extreme duress possible making snap judgments about subjects that they have little or no training on, are correct?

I have read accounts of people who were close to the action, who are appalled by the betrayal and lies of their own government.

One assumption you are making here is that the media gives you an accurate impression of what these professionals experienced and believe. But how could they...

Excerpt from http://www.rense.com/general48/ciwc.htm
Court Denies Access To Firefighter's 911 WTC Opinions
Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phonecalls made to 911 on that day. Before the records of the oral histories are released to the press, all mention of the opinions and
recommendations of those interviewed will be deleted first, so the press will only get the interviewees' "personal expressions of feelings". In other words, if a firefighter who was interviewed said, "I heard what sounded like explosions and I think it was bombs that took down those towers, it was all so horrible", the press will merely get the portion that says: "it was all so horrible".
And to be sure this isn't made up, you can read the judgement here:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_00091.htm

[kookbreaker]

I have read accounts of people who were close to the action, who are appalled by the betrayal and lies of their own government.

One assumption you are making here is that the media gives you an accurate impression of what these professionals experienced and believe. But how could they...

Excerpt from http://www.rense.com/general48/ciwc.htm
Court Denies Access To Firefighter's 911 WTC Opinions

And to be sure this isn't made up, you can read the judgement here:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_00091.htm

I don't buy Rense's take on the matter.

The NYFD made it clear they were not happy with releasing the tapes since they were concerned that ghoulish media elements would abuse them, a violation of firefighters' privacy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0034.htm

Eight families who wanted disclosure were not challenged by the NYFD.

I really have a hard time buying the idea that the NYFD is in on the conspiracy. The idea that the managers, who usually come from the ranks, would callously toss away hundreds of firefighter's lives just for some vauge and undefined political gain by the President goes beyond pale for CTs.

Are there angry NYFD firefighters? Certainly. 9/11 exposed many adminstrative, procedural and equipment failures that are likely inexcusable. But that does not make for a conspiracy.

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[thesyntaxera]

You claimed that the buildings fell to fast, a number of your sources say this too. They claim that it would take explosives to do that, to take out the support of EVERY floor and put it into free fall. Ergo you if you support this you admit that every floor would have to be wired.

no, I didn't personally claim anything, and yes a number of sources do claim that. I never said I supported anything.


Oh wow, he CLAIMS that!! And 110% why that's, MORE THAN 100%!! So he sure must be credible!

yeah, thats what I was implying;) ...or I could have been saying that he claims that he has documentation to back it up, and why not use your time as a dedicated skeptic to look into the matter....instead of trying to prove how much you assume you know to me...


You are not in the proper position to judge the initial one inadequate. Also, it is likely that if there were an official investigation again, you would just claim it was not credible.

and you are how? no, if there was a proper investigation I would not claim it to be tainted. I would say, awesome...so what happened?


You mean they let the terrorists rig the buildings with demolition charges and use remote control planes to fly....no forget it.

No, thats not what I mean. What I mean is terrorists could have gotten access, that much is certain, so why couldn't they have planted explosives, and flown the planes into the building, detonating explosives after the hits?

I am not contradicting yourself, you simply know nothing of Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is for financial support, intelligence gathering, and training of loosely affiliated Wahhabist organizations and small cells. Bin Laden does not hand down orders on operations.

I think what you mean to say is myself...because you can't be contradicting yourself...but anyway...if Osama bin Laden isn't doing anything really, then why was HE responsible for 9/11? If I simply know nothing of bin Laden then what makes you SO certain? Did you read the Wiki article or something?

How many hijackers in the past, before 9-11 actually TOOK the wheel of the plane and piloted it? How many people do you need to pilot a plane? How qualified are you to explain how complicated a hijacking is since these things have happened a lot since WWII?

Your making highjackings sound like the plague of the airport industry...all I am saying is don't underestimate what it takes to fly a jet at 600+ into not one but three buildings.


An outright lie. Qualified experts in that field DID expect the fire to contribute to the collapse.

Did they? How about this...we can play a game, you give me a list of "experts" that fully expected that the buildings would collapse, and I'll give you an equally long list of "experts" that disagree...fair enough?

Trained by the CIA? No, most Mujahadeen were trained by the Pakistani ISID, which received money and arms from the CIA and a number of countries. Bin Laden took care of his own training programs through his Services Bureau(Maktyab al-Khidimat or MAK). Any CIA support going to the MAK would have first come through the ISID.

Ok, so it was a bit of generalization, as far as we know...even though we don't really know. Either way, the CIA paid for the creation of Al-Qaeda.


Excuse me? Thermite is not a demolitions explosive. It is an incindiery used to destroy military equipment. I have personally seen Thermite in action and if you think that someone would use Thermite to demolish a building, especially if they wanted to do so secretly, you would have to be insane.

A rag might stop up your running orifice dribble...thermite has many uses not just one, namely you can use it anyway you like.

Thermite reactions have many uses. It was originally used for repair welding in-place such things as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. Thermite grenades are used in war to destroy sensitive equipment or documents when at imminent risk of capture by the enemy. Thermite grenades and bombs have been used in combat as incendiary devices, able to burn through heavy armor or other fireproof barriers. Thermite can also be used for quickly cutting or welding metal such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. The mixture has been sold for many years under the trademark name Thermit for use in railroad welding.

This type of reaction when used to purify the ores of some metals is called the Thermite process. An adaptation of the thermite reaction, used to obtain pure uranium, was developed as part of the Manhattan Project at Ames Laboratory under the direction of Frank Spedding. It is sometimes called the Ames process.

The thermite reaction can take place by accident in industrial locations where abrasive grinding and cutting wheels are used with ferrous metals. Using aluminium in this situation produces an admixture of oxides which is capable of violent explosive reaction.

Thermite is the "anarchist-pyro" tool of choice as it is hot enough to melt completely through every part of a car engine and the concrete below.

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

waiting.

Any event could conceiveably have sinister motives. Any event could have explinations that are off the wall. What differentiates mental illness from sanity is being able to rationally explain the whys and wherefores of events.

Without these explinations speculations about 9/11 are nice to know but meaningless. So I ask again, who? Why? How was it covered up?

[EatatJoes]

Forgive my laziness. I have not read through all of the posts here. The first few posts had questions regarding the fact that the plane hit in the exact same spots that were convenient for the explosives to go off is a poor excuse for rejecting the conspiracy claim. Those explosives are remotely set off. So besides the fact that somebody, somewhere was willing to set off those explosives killing hundreds of people doesn't negate the fact that the plane didn't have to hit the building at an "exact" place. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

[Year Zero]

Forgive my laziness. I have not read through all of the posts here. The first few posts had questions regarding the fact that the plane hit in the exact same spots that were convenient for the explosives to go off is a poor excuse for rejecting the conspiracy claim. Those explosives are remotely set off. So besides the fact that somebody, somewhere was willing to set off those explosives killing hundreds of people doesn't negate the fact that the plane didn't have to hit the building at an "exact" place. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.


No what we are saying is that when you rig a building for demolition, it is a long, time-consuming process and is not as predictable as some people think. So whatever calculations that you can actually do are literally blown to hell once you crash a plane into the building at some point. Then there is the risk of the building not coming down properly if at all, due to severed detcord, prematurely exploded charges, etc.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Forgive my laziness. I have not read through all of the posts here. The first few posts had questions regarding the fact that the plane hit in the exact same spots that were convenient for the explosives to go off is a poor excuse for rejecting the conspiracy claim. Those explosives are remotely set off. So besides the fact that somebody, somewhere was willing to set off those explosives killing hundreds of people doesn't negate the fact that the plane didn't have to hit the building at an "exact" place. I'm only playing devil's advocate.


If you'd read the thread, you'd have read that demolishing big buildings is not at all a simple matter even for professionals. So while the idea that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives is very silly to anyone who knows anything about demolitions, the idea that the WTC could have been wired so that a remote operator could blow it up and make it look like a natural collapse no matter where a plane hit is just off the planet.


I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

Well, hit us with the major points that disturb you then. Hopefully someone here can deal with them, or at least tell you that the info you need is somewhere earlier in the thread.

[Ashles]

So let me get this straight.

Two fully fuel laden 747s crash into two of the tallest buildings in the US. This is witnessed by many peple and multiple TV cameras.
The buildings catch fire and subsequently collapse.
A known terrorist group that had the ability and motive accepts responsibility.

And some people then question this?

I don't anymore understand why we are dignifying thesyntaxera's comments with responses.

Either s/he is a paranoid conspiracist in which case s/he requires professional help. Or s/he is a troll in which case s/he requires total absence of attention.
Either way this has got ridiculous in terms of response.
Thesyntaxera is never going to accept mere logic and evidence.

It's time to let them continue in the mad little word they exist in, perhaps handing out leaflets in their area that might convince the emotionally confused that their theory has a vague base on which to build.

Once you start to ignore evidence and logic then you have entered an entirely pointless area of debate.
Bye bye.

[thesyntaxera]

I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

yeah their doing wonders. I tried the same approach to finding out the popular skeptical answers, these guys reponded as if somebody took a dump in their cereal.

[thesyntaxera]

So let me get this straight.

Two fully fuel laden 747s crash into two of the tallest buildings in the US. This is witnessed by many peple and multiple TV cameras.
The buildings catch fire and subsequently collapse.
A known terrorist group that had the ability and motive accepts responsibility.

And some people then question this?

I don't anymore understand why we are dignifying thesyntaxera's comments with responses.

Either s/he is a paranoid conspiracist in which case s/he requires professional help. Or s/he is a troll in which case s/he requires total absence of attention.
Either way this has got ridiculous in terms of response.
Thesyntaxera is never going to accept mere logic and evidence.

It's time to let them continue in the mad little word they exist in, perhaps handing out leaflets in their area that might convince the emotionally confused that their theory has a vague base on which to build.

Once you start to ignore evidence and logic then you have entered an entirely pointless area of debate.
Bye bye.

thank you for that little gem oh logical one. I HAVE NOT OFFERED A SINGLE THEORY!!!!!...you all are reacting as if dispelling these things might shatter my world view....sorry, I can't foresee that happening.

The only theory I suggested, was that if a proper investigation had been done we might have uncovered enough shady dealings to have prevented some of our more prominent recent mistakes in foreign policy, or at least a re-election.

I would like to think the "evidence" you support wasn't cherry picked, but I'm not convinced, and your pathetic attempts to cling to a skeleton of an explanation, to extrapolate, to guess, to rationalize don't help....

If you can't see that skepticism is a just a different shade of grey when compared to conspiracy theory you need to get your glasses checked...both rely on the same type of logic, it's just that CT's revolve around the sinister, and skeptics keep things in a rosy painted hue.

Prefer to believe whatever you want as it doesn't really matter either way, however to assume superiority because of some axe you have to grind is just pompous arrogance that will ultimately betray you.


So, a list of experts please

an explanation as to why I can't see a photo of a plane hitting the pentagon

an explanation as to why a deductive investigation wasn't done

a good reason not to release 6,000 sealed photo's

an explanation as to the reasons for Osama bin Laden and Iraq to be responsible when according to Year Zero they had little to do with it

if you can't answer these questions with certainty...ie facts...not guesses, not rationalizations, not tired inductive rhetoric, then I don't see how you can support any story...because obviously you don't have complete picture to begin with.

[CurtC]

thesyntaxera, you first started using the words "deductive" and "inductive" in an unusual way, and said that I can't understand science if I don't understand what you're saying. Then eight pages later, someone posts an explanation of what you mean when you use those words. I said that I'm not a philosopher, but I do understand how science is done, and the investigation was done like proper science.

I have a hard time imagining how you could conduct an investigation into an event like this and not have some idea of an explanation during the investigation. In science, some initial data points to a hypothesis, then more work is done to see if there is any data that would falisfy that hypothesis. That's what was done with 9/11. The initial indications were that Al Quaeda terrorists hijacked airplanes, crashed them into buildings, and the WTC collapsed due to the fire. The investigating panel then took this idea and went through all the data, seeing if anything would falsify the idea. They found nothing that would go against it.

Instead of complaining about the investigation using some abstract philosophical argument which isn't valid anyway, the proper way to argue against it would be to point out some data that would falsify their conclusion. Do you have anything like that?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

Ah hah!!! By asking this, it is apparent you are in on The Conspiracy(tm). You are trying to throw us dedicated truth seekers off the trail. Are you Jewish by chance? And a banker? :p

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, you first started using the words "deductive" and "inductive" in an unusual way...

No, I used them in the exact sense of thier meaning, you cannot prove skeptical claims at this point, just as you can't prove CT claims because they share the same flaw, they are based on inductive reasoning which isn't really consider scienctific in the first place.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=induction
The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.

Whats strange about that? This is how skeptics have arrived at conclusions in this instance, just as in the investigation. There is no way they could have known bin Laden and Al-qaeda were behind it on the day of the attack. If there was information to suggest this beforehand to aide in this deduction, then it only bolsters the CT claims of conspiracy even more.

and said that I can't understand science if I don't understand what you're saying. Then eight pages later, someone posts an explanation of what you mean when you use those words. I said that I'm not a philosopher, but I do understand how science is done, and the investigation was done like proper science.

No, apparently you don't, because no, it wasn't, the most shallow examination of the official explanation, and the preceding "investigation" reveals this. Being a philosopher has nothing to do with it either.

I have a hard time imagining how you could conduct an investigation into an event like this and not have some idea of an explanation during the investigation.

In any deductive investigation the facts inform your hypothesis, but first you have to gather facts before you can form a theory.

In science, some initial data points to a hypothesis, then more work is done to see if there is any data that would falisfy that hypothesis. That's what was done with 9/11. The initial indications were that Al Quaeda terrorists hijacked airplanes, crashed them into buildings, and the WTC collapsed due to the fire. The investigating panel then took this idea and went through all the data, seeing if anything would falsify the idea. They found nothing that would go against it.

See above again...and the fact that there is an entire legitimate movement outside the cospiracy circles that wants answers to these same questions doesn't faze you either suppose? There is literally tons of circumstantial evidence, conflicting reports, and surrounding circumstances that were completely ignored.

Instead of complaining about the investigation using some abstract philosophical argument which isn't valid anyway, the proper way to argue against it would be to point out some data that would falsify their conclusion. Do you have anything like that

Instead of wasting your time on a post like this which you obviously can't restrain yourself from, why don't you think of something to add to the conversation. My abstract argument is fairly staight forward, and not philosophical in the least. It states, the investigation sucked, the results are not reliable to form a conclusion.

There is plenty to falsify, but first you need to read up on what it is you think you are saying...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

[delphi_ote]

yeah their doing wonders. I tried the same approach to finding out the popular skeptical answers, these guys reponded as if somebody took a dump in their cereal.

I don't know what's more disturbing, the mess that is this post or the fact that I'm quoting the edited version.

[thesyntaxera]

I don't know what's more disturbing, the mess that is this post or the fact that I'm quoting the edited version.

ouch, I have no choice but to think you are cool now.

[thesyntaxera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

The ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold. or: There is no ice in the Sun.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.


Validity
Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)

In induction there are always many conclusions that can reasonably be related to certain premises. Inductions are open; deductions are closed.

The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of induction, meaning the search for a justification for inductive reasoning, was by the Scotsman David Hume. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday reasoning depends on patterns of repeated experience rather than deductively valid arguments. For example we believe that bread will nourish us because it has in the past, but it is at least conceivable that bread in the future will poison us.

Someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death, said Hume. Instead of unproductive radical skepticism about everything, he advocated a practical skepticism based on common-sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted.

20th Century developments have framed the problem of induction very differently. Rather than a choice about what predictions to make about the future, it can be seen as a choice of what concepts to fit to observation (see the entry for grue) or of what graphs to fit to a set of observed data points.

Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past, but in its broadest sense it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis of what is observed. Inferences about the past from present evidence (e.g. archaeology) count as induction. Induction could also be across space rather than time, e.g. conclusions about the whole universe from what we observe in our galaxy or national economic policy based on local economic performance.

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's funny, I could swear that those wikipedia quotes directly contradict your claim to be using "inductive" and "deductive" in their normal English senses.

Who did you think you would fool by this manoeuvre?

[thesyntaxera]

That's funny, I could swear that those wikipedia quotes directly contradict your claim to be using "inductive" and "deductive" in their normal English senses.

Who did you think you would fool by this manoeuvre?


Apparently you, because I did use it in the "normal" english sense, unless there is some "english sense" I am unaware of. You need to read closer.

[CurtC]

No, I used them in the exact sense of thier meaning, you cannot prove skeptical claims at this point, just as you can't prove CT claims because they share the same flaw, they are based on inductive reasoning which isn't really consider scienctific in the first place.[bolding mine]What you're calling "inductive reasoning" is exactly how science works. A hypothesis is formed, and more data is looked at to see if it's consistent with the hypothesis. If it's not, the hypothesis is falsified, and it needs to be modified or tossed.

I highlighted the words "prove" above to show how your ideas conflict with the scientific approach. In science, an idea is never proved, it just gets stronger and stronger as it withstands more attempts to falisfy it. All theories are tentative, and can't be proved by the rules of formal logic.

But they can be falsified - I again ask, do you have any data that would falsify the theory that Al Qaeda-inspired men hijacked four airliners, crashed three of them into buildings, and the subsequent fires caused the two WTC towers to collapse? That's how science is done.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Apparently you, because I did use it in the "normal" english sense, unless there is some "english sense" I am unaware of. You need to read closer.

This is incorrect.

An investigation which presupposes the official story to be correct and then attempts to discover more details about that story is not inductive. That is not what induction means. Induction means drawing general conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases.

An investigation which approaches an event agnostically and attempts to see which interpretation of events is the best is not deductive. That is not what deduction means. Deduction means discovering new facts that are implicit in already known facts.

Either form of investigation would necessarily involve both inductive and deductive thinking to get results.

These terms simply do not mean anything resembling what you claim them to mean. Your quoted material uses the terms correctly, but you do not.

[thesyntaxera]

What you're calling "inductive reasoning" is exactly how science works. A hypothesis is formed, and more data is looked at to see if it's consistent with the hypothesis. If it's not, the hypothesis is falsified, and it needs to be modified or tossed.

No...it's not...*sigh*

A hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. Science can utilize inductive reasoning from time to time, but relies on the deductive appoach to evidence to inform it's inductive guess regarding hypothesis. That is not what was done in the 9/11 investigation.

I highlighted the words "prove" above to show how your ideas conflict with the scientific approach. In science, an idea is never proved, it just gets stronger and stronger as it withstands more attempts to falisfy it. All theories are tentative, and can't be proved by the rules of formal logic.

Yeah, I know, but were not talking about the philosophy of science here, despite what we have been going on about, we are talking about how testable the official theory is, and to reiterate, it is a theories ability to be falsified that makes it scientific...I know this must sound like a paradox...but have faith, for it is how science is done. Formal logic utilizes deduction as a means to make scientific theory more probable.

But they can be falsified - I again ask, do you have any data that would falsify the theory that Al Qaeda-inspired men hijacked four airliners, crashed three of them into buildings, and the subsequent fires caused the two WTC towers to collapse? That's how science is done.

Since you apparently still don't know what falsification means in science, go back up and read the link to the definition...and then read my answer to this same question.

[thesyntaxera]

An investigation which presupposes the official story to be correct and then attempts to discover more details about that story is not inductive.

No, that is exactly what induction is, and furthermore, what you are describing is a bias in favor of the official story, which would be a bias against deduction. If you ignore some but not all evidence, if you do not chase and investigate every lead then you are not deducing at all. This is how criminal investigations are handled all the time, and this was a criminal investigation....not an accident reconstruction.


That is not what induction means. Induction means drawing general conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases.

Yeah, thats what I said. You are drawing, just as the 9/11 commision has drawn, conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases, this is induction, this is what you are doing. It's all very clear, but if you would like to chase your tail on this, please do.

An investigation which approaches an event agnostically and attempts to see which interpretation of events is the best is not deductive. That is not what deduction means. Deduction means discovering new facts that are implicit in already known facts.

Actually, in investigation, you take in all available evidence, and exhaust every lead before you attempt to form a theory, you may use inductive reasoning or your "hunch" as it were, but it is the systematic dissection of all the evidence that garners the truth.

Either form of investigation would necessarily involve both inductive and deductive thinking to get results.

This is true, with more emphasis on the deductive portion, and an extreme emphasis on deductive investigation.

These terms simply do not mean anything resembling what you claim them to mean. Your quoted material uses the terms correctly, but you do not.

I suspect you need to brush up on your scientific method, and philospophy a bit before you get all accusatory....these terms are being used in a most literal interpretation.

[thesyntaxera]

any more broken records?

[CurtC]

Since you apparently still don't know what falsification means in science, go back up and read the link to the definition...and then read my answer to this same question.OK, I read the Wikipedia article on falsifiability, and I assure you that's how I was using the word. The 9/11 investigation came up with a theory and tested it in ways that would falsify it. They found none. Do you have any evidence that would falsify their theory? I keep asking this.
we are talking about how testable the official theory is, and to reiterate, it is a theories ability to be falsified that makes it scientific...I know this must sound like a paradox...but have faith, for it is how science is done.That's what I've been saying - the 9/11 investigation came up with a theory that is falsifiable. You're claiming it's wrong, and I'm asking to see the evidence that would falsify it.

You keep describing in vague ways that the investigation was inductive rather than deductive. But it's obvious by now that your use of these terms does not agree with our use of them, therefore you're not communicating your ideas to us. Please describe, without using the words inductive or deductive, specifically why the 9/11 investigation was not done well, and give a specific example or two. I mean, I can simply say "the investigation was too deductive!" until I'm blue in the face, but it won't help progress this discussion at all.

[thesyntaxera]

The 9/11 investigation came up with a theory and tested it in ways that would falsify it. They found none. Do you have any evidence that would falsify their theory? I keep asking this.

Like I said already, if a theory doesn't possess the possibility that it could be false than it is not scientific, I really don't know how to explain it any other way. In the case of 9/11 there was an official story before all of the evidence could have been gathered, infact the official story began the day of the attack when we heard that bin Laden was behind it, they took 18 months, sealed 28 pages of the report, sealed 6,000 photo's, showed no plane hitting the pentagon, and explained how there wasn't any explosives with government appointed experts.

They ignored a massive pile of circumstantial evidence, because there was a story in place that they were looking for evidence of...

That's what I've been saying - the 9/11 investigation came up with a theory that is falsifiable. You're claiming it's wrong, and I'm asking to see the evidence that would falsify it.

Listen, a theory isn't true or false. Facts are true, lies are false. Theories are formed from an expected set of probabilities for occurance, and if they can't be faked, they are not science, if there is no way to test the theory, it is not science, if it is the result of a preestablished story that guided the investigation, it is inductive logic at its worst.

it's obvious by now that your use of these terms does not agree with our use of them, therefore you're not communicating your ideas to us.

what are you guys some kind of skeptic cult that avoids the slings and arrows with semantics? I have been communicating just fine, you are only hearing what you want to hear.

Please describe, without using the words inductive or deductive, specifically why the 9/11 investigation was not done well, and give a specific example or two. I mean, I can simply say "the investigation was too deductive!" until I'm blue in the face, but it won't help progress this discussion at all.

I already have, several times. You as a skeptic should investigate my claim of a lack of deduction on your own if you wish to debunk it. If I were to say anything, you in your bumbling skepticism using rationalization would just attempt to debunk each circumstance instead of looking at the greater picture that is painted by all the circumstantial evidence, coincidental foul ups, blocked inquiries, sealed records, and unreleased photo's that should only validate the official story more if it is in fact accurate. I can't really see how releasing anything would jeopardize national security....or whatever excuse was given for not opening the books.

[Ed]

an explanation as to why I can't see a photo of a plane hitting the pentagon

Are you denying it did? If so, without clear proof I submit you are mad.

an explanation as to why a deductive investigation wasn't done

Whan a person harps on a specific word or phrase it is a sign of wooishness. Generating hypotheses based on data and testing them works for research in every scientific discipline and there is no reason to suspect that approach did not work here. Anyway, I suspect that it was looked at every which way from sunday.

a good reason not to release 6,000 sealed photo's

Depends whats in them. I have no need, personally, to see any more photographs of people falling to their deaths. I also have zero need to see the effects of a 1000+ foot fall on a human body. Do you?

an explanation as to the reasons for Osama bin Laden and Iraq to be responsible when according to Year Zero they had little to do with it

"BIN LADEN: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for. "
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/binladentext_121301.html






if you can't answer these questions with certainty...ie facts...not guesses, not rationalizations, not tired inductive rhetoric, then I don't see how you can support any story...because obviously you don't have complete picture to begin with.

Inductive, deductive, it is like Ian and his one note about materialism. Evidence trumps silly theory everytime and I have not seen a jot of evidence from you yet.

Why? Who? How was it covered up?

If you can't give even some information on those things you have nothing.

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, that is exactly what induction is, and furthermore, what you are describing is a bias in favor of the official story, which would be a bias against deduction. If you ignore some but not all evidence, if you do not chase and investigate every lead then you are not deducing at all. This is how criminal investigations are handled all the time, and this was a criminal investigation....not an accident reconstruction.


All of this is incorrect. Presupposing your conclusions is incompatible with both proper deduction and proper induction, so calling such an "investigation" either inductive or deductive is inaccurate.

You can make valid deductions without having all the evidence, and as long as they are valid deductions from the evidence you do have they will still be correct. It is only making inductions from limited data that is dangerous.

I strongly suggest that in future you just don't use the terms "inductive" or "deductive". You don't know what they mean, and your misuse of the terms obscures the meaning of your posts. Find other ways of expressing yourself that do not cause confusion.


Yeah, thats what I said. You are drawing, just as the 9/11 commision has drawn, conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases, this is induction, this is what you are doing. It's all very clear, but if you would like to chase your tail on this, please do.


As I said, the 9/11 commission by necessity employed both deductive and inductive methods, and it would have done so however it was conducted.


Actually, in investigation, you take in all available evidence, and exhaust every lead before you attempt to form a theory, you may use inductive reasoning or your "hunch" as it were, but it is the systematic dissection of all the evidence that garners the truth.


There is no such thing as "all available evidence", unless you are omniscient. All you can do is collect all the evidence that is available and that a reasonable person might think relevant. Sometimes you form a theory halfway through the investigation which changes your perception of relevance, so that you seek out information which you would not have thought to be relevant when you began the investigation.


I suspect you need to brush up on your scientific method, and philospophy a bit before you get all accusatory....these terms are being used in a most literal interpretation.

Look, one of us is just wrong here. One of us knows a lot less about this topic than they think. Can we agree on that?

[CurtC]

Like I said already, if a theory doesn't possess the possibility that it could be false than it is not scientific, I really don't know how to explain it any other way.Is that what you've been harping about? You think the prevailing theory of the 9/11 events is not falsifiable? You're flat wrong. Find evidence of explosives in the WTC. Find a picture of a missile, or anything other than a 757, hitting the Pentagon. There are literally thousands of ways to falsify it. Unfortunately for you and other CTs, nothing like that has ever shown up.
In the case of 9/11 there was an official story before all of the evidence could have been gatheredWell, duh! There was lots of evidence on the first day pointing to what happened. Should everyone wait quietly in suspense, like a jury, while they're waiting for all the WTC wreckage to be cleared?
Listen, a theory isn't true or false.After it's falsified, a theory is false. For example, Lamarckian evelutionary theory is false.
You as a skeptic should investigate my claim of a lack of deduction on your own if you wish to debunk it.Maybe I could if I understood what you're saying.
If I were to say anything, you in your bumbling skepticism using rationalization would just attempt to debunk each circumstance instead of looking at the greater picture that is painted by all the circumstantial evidence...What circumstantial evidence? Every bit of hearsay indicating a conspiracy that I've seen has been, uh, unreliable, to be polite. Are you saying that we should overlook the fact that all that hearsay and conjecture is unreliable, but instead look at the overall picture that this unreliable evidence points to? Is that your point of all this?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just a reminder to those "debating" thesyntaxera/rouser2: :hb:

[thesyntaxera]

Are you denying it did? If so, without clear proof I submit you are mad.

Hey god, I am not denying anything, I am asking why there isn't one? It's a simple question, so don't think about it too hard.


Depends whats in them. I have no need, personally, to see any more photographs of people falling to their deaths. I also have zero need to see the effects of a 1000+ foot fall on a human body. Do you?

I'm not a gore hound as your implying, but that is not the only thing that is in 6000 pictures, be realistic.


Inductive, deductive, it is like Ian and his one note about materialism. Evidence trumps silly theory everytime and I have not seen a jot of evidence from you yet.

Well since I am not going to be able to prove anything to you anyway, and since the only evidence available to me is the evidence that is available to you, I assume that since you are arguing with me about it you have gone through all of that same circumstantial evidence that the CT's have gone through and drawn different conclusions. So in essence you are doing the exact same thing the other way...you can't prove your claim anymore than a CT buff....and thats the problem. There isn't enough public information.

Thanks for stopping over god, I figured you would be busy.

[thesyntaxera]

Is that what you've been harping about? You think the prevailing theory of the 9/11 events is not falsifiable? You're flat wrong. Find evidence of explosives in the WTC. Find a picture of a missile, or anything other than a 757, hitting the Pentagon. There are literally thousands of ways to falsify it.

Well, if only there was a picture released to public of a plane hitting the pentagon on the 11th....or maybe they should have heeded the observations and reports from the people who heard more than two explosions, and observed damage to the lower floors of the building...regardless of credibility they are still there, and they were there.




Unfortunately for you and other CTs, nothing like that has ever shown up.
Well, duh! There was lots of evidence on the first day pointing to what happened. Should everyone wait quietly in suspense, like a jury, while they're waiting for all the WTC wreckage to be cleared?

Thats because they never released any....duh! No, they should have cleaned up the toxic debris as quickly as possible instead of allowing firefighters, police officers, port authority workers, and civilians to trapse though it.


After it's falsified, a theory is false. For example, Lamarckian evelutionary theory is false.

I am moving you from slightly intelligible to semi moron in my mental picture of you. That not what that means at all....evolutionary theory isn't proven, thats why it's a theory...all good theories must contain the possibility that they could be wrong....it's about science not being deterministic.


What circumstantial evidence?

:shocked: :shocked:

[thesyntaxera]

All of this is incorrect. Presupposing your conclusions is incompatible with both proper deduction and proper induction, so calling such an "investigation" either inductive or deductive is inaccurate.

Presupposing conclusions based on past evidence to extrapolate about the future is induction...this is not incorrect as you assert.

You can make valid deductions without having all the evidence, and as long as they are valid deductions from the evidence you do have they will still be correct.

No, not always, and deducing properly requires all available evidence to be gathered; they didn't even test the steel for explosive residue until two years after the fact. In fact most of the independant investigation didn't occur until after the AGENDA FOR WAR was approved.


It is only making inductions from limited data that is dangerous.

Exactly, my assertion this entire time.

I strongly suggest that in future you just don't use the terms "inductive" or "deductive". You don't know what they mean, and your misuse of the terms obscures the meaning of your posts. Find other ways of expressing yourself that do not cause confusion.

I strongly suggest you take a refresher course in logic. I have used plain language, so the problem is on your end, as far as I can tell...but I could be wrong.



As I said, the 9/11 commission by necessity employed both deductive and inductive methods, and it would have done so however it was conducted.

This could be the problem, I am one of those in the "there is no place for induction in logic" camp.



There is no such thing as "all available evidence", unless you are omniscient. All you can do is collect all the evidence that is available and that a reasonable person might think relevant.

What...? So my assertion still stands, they didn't gather all of the available evidence that they could have at the time.

Sometimes you form a theory halfway through the investigation which changes your perception of relevance

ummm....isn't that using induction to steer your conlusion?

[CurtC]

That not what that means at all....evolutionary theory isn't proven, thats why it's a theory...all good theories must contain the possibility that they could be wrong....it's about science not being deterministic.You've almost got it - a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific, but what happens when good evidence is found that contradicts a theory? It is then false, like Lamarckian evolutionary theory. That theory was falsifiable, and has been falsified, therefore is false. You claimed that theories are not true or false. I said they can be false, and demonstrated with an example.

Back to the circumstantial evidence - you finally mentioned that some people, I assume at the Pentagon, heard more than one explosion. Is that remarkable, and does it point to a conspiracy? It's not surprising to me that, with a jet airliner hitting the Pentagon, and the building partially collapsing, that witnesses might hear something that sounds like explosions more than once. That data is not inconsistent with the terrorist theory.

Is there anything else? Anything at all?

[thesyntaxera]

You've almost got it - a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific, but what happens when good evidence is found that contradicts a theory? It is then false, like Lamarckian evolutionary theory. That theory was falsifiable, and has been falsified, therefore is false. You claimed that theories are not true or false. I said they can be false, and demonstrated with an example.

Back to the circumstantial evidence - you finally mentioned that some people, I assume at the Pentagon, heard more than one explosion. Is that remarkable, and does it point to a conspiracy? It's not surprising to me that, with a jet airliner hitting the Pentagon, and the building partially collapsing, that witnesses might hear something that sounds like explosions more than once. That data is not inconsistent with the terrorist theory.

Is there anything else? Anything at all?

....my point is that there isn't anything to disprove the conspiracy theory.

[Ed]

....my point is that there isn't anything to disprove the conspiracy theory.

Nor that martians did it.

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[thesyntaxera]

Nor that martians did it.

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

Exactly, martians are the least likely candidate, although reptiles from the 4th dimension might be to blame.

or...

you are asking me to speculate, and I won't. There isn't enough evidence available to me to make a guess, and even if I were to guess it wouldn't prove anything, just like you apparently can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is the rock solid truth.

[Manny]

you are asking me to speculate, and I won't. There isn't enough evidence available to me to make a guessDing ding ding! We have a winner! After all these pages of mental masturbation, you've come full circle to agreeing with the other people on this thread. Having reviewed all the evidence and alleged evidence, there isn't enough credible information to even hazard a guess other than the "official" story backed by scientists, witnesses and other people in a position to determine what really happened.

...and even if I were to guess it wouldn't prove anything, just like you apparently can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is the rock solid truth.A shadow of a doubt? I suppose that's true in the sense that you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not a paid agent of al Qaeda. What of it?

[thesyntaxera]

Official account challenged
Before the sun had set on the evening of September 11, competing theories were being developed to explain what had occurred. For each version of events reported by the mainstream media (the “Common Account”) that transpired that Tuesday, there has arisen an alternate view. Some of these theories have more adherents than others.

While those who accept the 9/11 Commission Report have often dismissed alternative hypotheses as conspiracy theories, there are individuals, groups and organizations who say that the most common account of the events can also be referred to as a conspiracy theory. Professor of philosophy of religion and theology David Ray Griffin has written, "…we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false."

As with almost all major historical events, there exists a wide variety of theories about those occurring on 9/11. Alternative theories to the Common Account surrounding this subject are generally placed in one or more of the following classifications:

Individuals within the U.S. government are covering up key details of the attacks and stonewalling an honest, exhaustive investigation into the events.
Individuals within the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to prevent them. This group can be referred to as LIHOP ("Let It Happen On Purpose").
Individuals within the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks themselves. This group can be referred to as MIHOP ("Make It Happen On Purpose").
Individuals within the government of Israel or Iraq were behind the attacks.

One of the ideas most commonly accepted by persons who doubt the dominant view is the notion that some segment of the United States Government allegedly knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. In the aftermath of the disaster, the intelligence world was looked upon to explain what went wrong within its own community. The following reports are drawn upon to support these alternate theories:

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton stated he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for September. According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors, they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. After 9/11 David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received from the FBI, but Mr. Shippers has said he received information warning of a terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.
Author William Norman Grigg furthers the Shippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" published in The New American. According to the article, three FBI agents interviewed confirmed, "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the FBI before September 11."
CBS News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines in July of 2001 because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. The Attorney General did fly at least two more times commercially after the assessment was given.
Two of the 9/11 hijackers from Flight 77 had lived with an FBI asset months prior to September 11th. According to CBS News, "The CIA sent out an alert Aug. 23, 2001, naming the two as possible terrorists — but the FBI didn't know the names of the two houseguests, who had moved out months earlier." The Administration also could not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant.
A high volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 for both American and United Airlines, among others[1]. The number of put options purchased was more than six times higher than normal[2]. Put options were purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories in the World Trade Center. Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw a 1200% increase in put options bought in the four days preceding 9/11. CNN reported that "Between August 10 and September 10, the NYSE says short sales of UAL Corp. increased 40 percent, American parent AMR Corp increased 20 percent, and aircraft manufacturer Boeing Corp. increased 37 percent. Short-sellers with advance knowledge of the attack could have made millions."[3] Stock tracker Phil Erlanger stated,"'It's not the type of thing you'd normally do, unless you were sure the stock price was going to go down . . .There was nothing going on to warrant that kind of speculation. The footprint is there. You've just got to find which shoe fits it."[4] Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurance company, was also examined. A reported $2.5 million in profits made trading options went unclaimed after 9/11. Insider trading is said to have also occurred in several other countries immediately before the attacks of Sept. 11.[5] Furthermore, investigators from the U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks (Five-year Treasury notes are considered one of the best investments in the event of a world crisis)[6]. and Germany's central bank governor, Ernst Welteke, says there were signs of suspicious movements in oil and gold prices before the attack.[7],[8] The Airline industry had been on unstable ground during 2001, and there were a number of put option spikes throughout the year. Although no evidence has yet been provided for anything sinister in these transactions, US intelligence agencies are known to monitor markets for signs of imminent, untoward events. Former Security and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas told Bloomberg News that regulators would "certainly be able to track down every trade," however, no arrests have ever occurred.
On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst, tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks.[9] (the referenced article does not indicate that Elgindy had any ties to the US government)
Rep Curt Weldon has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks. (MSNBC, More remember Atta ID’d as terrorist pre-9/11, 9/1/2005)
Four days before the attack Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed an executive order that some have interpreted as allowing Bush to declare martial law and others have said was a routine training order.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told talk show host Larry King that at eight o'clock of the morning of the attack he was meeting with some congressmen and told them " that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department."

Collapse of the World Trade Center
Many aspects of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings have been well documented, though other aspects, such as the destruction of WTC building 7, have received less scrutiny. Those who reject the dominant version of events support their claim with both a presentation of evidence that many are not aware of, as well as interpretation of the more commonly known evidence.

Much of the discussion about Towers One and Two centers around the idea that planted explosives brought down the structure. This idea would fall into the MIHOP category listed above. Many researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have highlighted the following:

Claims regarding the actual collapse

Lower Manhattan as seen from New Jersey, shortly after the attacks and subsequent collapse of the World Trade Center towersIt has been observed the Twin Towers fell straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a similar characteristic of a controlled demolition. As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects breaking away from the collapsing towers are photographed falling faster than the actual building, indicating the structure was not in a true free fall but very close to it as in the case of typical prepared demolitions.
The dust cloud and its make up are considered un-characteristic of a gravity-driven collapse. These arguments also cite reports from fire-fighters and others on the scene that nearly all the concrete was pulverized. Aside from explosives, the energy from the fall would be the only source of energy to cause the concrete to be pulverized. It is unclear as to how much gravitational energy was stored in the buildings or its ability to cause such pulverization, as very few studies have been done in order to obtain a conclusive answer for any theory regarding the dust cloud. At least one detailed analysis [10] of selected dust samples (to determine the exposure of nearby residents and workers to toxic contaminants) was conducted, but the samples were all collected from just three sheltered locations, and rain on September 15th washed away dust in exposed locations. A USGS study showed the elemental composition of a number of dust samples collected from outdoor and indoor locations [11]. However, no study has addressed the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues.
Many witnesses retold the event with the use of words such as "bomb" or "explosion" to describe what they heard during the attack up to the subsequent collapse. Many witnesses describe multiple sounds heard before the collapses bearing curious and unique features. One observer recalls, "It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions," as well as this impression, "It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions."
It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire. The following examples are generally cited in regards to this claim: the Caracas Tower (2004), One Meridian Plaza (1991), First Interstate Bank (1988) and 1 New York Plaza (1970), as illustrated here. The recent fire of the Madrid Windsor Tower, a 32 story building burned for nearly 24 hours in February of 2005, resulted in a partial but not total collapse (steel portions involved in the fire had collapsed.[12]). However, the Windsor Tower, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel alone, and thus, is not a close comparison to the WTC towers. While the above examples differed slightly from the Twin Towers in design and materials, all steel framed high rise buildings must follow common standards of building code specifications for resisting fire [13] and other events which could result in structural failures.
Some opponents of this analysis cite the 10,000 page National Institute of Standards and Technology report, which presented evidence on how and why they believe buildings collapsed. The report noted that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." [14]. Though this report said there was no such evidence, physicist Steven E. Jones and others have pointed out that it did not address or try to refute any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.

Claims in reference to the aftermath or debris field


A section of fuselage rests in the ruins of the World Trade Center.The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse [16]. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, observed "literally molten steel" at the WTC. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that the molten metal cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. He has also noted that molten iron is a byproduct of a thermite reaction, which could have been used in the demolition of the towers[17]. Molten metal was also mentioned by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc(citation needed). The extreme temperatures in the rubble pile are unprecedented in the history of documented building fires or structural failures. The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 2750 °F (1510 °C) while the highest speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers circled 2000 °F (1093 °C). According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)," however, these temperatures could not have been reached in the towers themselves (if thermite or other explosives were not used) since air-aspirated open hydrocarbon fires typically cannot exceed 820 °C. Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9cm at 932 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle. The molten steel observation has not been elaborated on or picked up by most news groups. The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, in a second hand account by James Williams who reported, "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said, "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins…" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile [18] since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile.
Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft. long. The last bits of debris were finally removed in May 2002. The speed of the removal process has raised eyebrows suggesting not enough forensic study was done. Critics of this assertion cite a statement by Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, where he said "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples."[19] NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as WTC 7. Large sections of steel destined for recycling were sent to areas in SE Asia. See images of the debris sorting for more information.
The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack. While it is still publicly unknown if any of the black boxes were recovered intact from the wreckage, a recent report has stated that a source has revealed that the black boxes from the planes in the WTC attack "were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB." The Chicago Tribune reported that experts believed the recorders would not be found simply because of the massive scope of the damage and debris. Now that the boxes may have been found, the validity of the opinions of experts, as reported by the Tribune, is in question. The contents of the black boxes could provide important clues about the skills of those flying the planes, their apparent strategy, ability to locate their targets, flying speed, etc.
On September 16th, 2001, several news agencies reported authorities finding "the passport of a suspected hijacker" which they described to be that of Satam al Suqami.
As the Chicago Tribune reported, many tons of the debris was stolen as "scrap" by the mafia, but recovered from New Jersey, supposedly intact.

Individual viewpoints on the collapse

With the exception of the last entry, the following individuals have expressed concern or doubts on the Common Account regarding the fate of the Twin Towers:

In a research report, entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, writes "The 'explosive demolition' hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated."
In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.
Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since retracted and revised his belief stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001). Some have wondered about the grant of $56 million which came to New Mexico Tech in the years following his retraction, as well as the apparent notable ability of Van Romero's to acquire federal funding[20].
A June 13, 2005 article in the Washington Times, reported that former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the Common Account about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Some have doubted this individual's credibility because he also questioned the involvement of commercial jets, stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767." [21]
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the Common Account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
In The New Pearl Harbor, Professor David Ray Griffin argues that the fact that WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower makes the collapse questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.
Before his death in February, 1986, Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, stated, "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes."
In support of the Common Account of the collapse, Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, according to him, the structure had no choice but to fall straight down, following the path of most resistance.
Firefighters in the Twin Towers reported seeing or hearing explosions





I could copy and paste the whole thing, but I think you might find this version easier to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

these links pretty much cover the skeptic case, as well as the official story, not to mention the Ct claims.

Read closely, and then lets talk....provide some refutations, or counter claims, or whatever you feel inclined to write....personal attacks, bad spelling, or whatever...

And if your gut response is to point out how unreliable wiki is, just know that it is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[CurtC]

....my point is that there isn't anything to disprove the conspiracy theory.Maybe that's because it's not falsifiable?

[thesyntaxera]

Are you not going to read all the information you have been asking me for this entire time?

I guess personal attacks are easier to write because they don't require any thought and can be summed in a sentence...you are probably just preserving your wrists instead of engaging in mental masterbation.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! After all these pages of mental masturbation, you've come full circle to agreeing with the other people on this thread.

thats what I have been claiming all along.

[CurtC]

Sorry, I plan to read through all that and I will likely respond later (it's a lot of text!).

By the way, the only personal attacks I've seen have been from you.

[thesyntaxera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy

The 9/11 Commission
Vice President Dick Cheney initially opposed a congressional commission into the 9/11 attacks, suggesting it would take vital resources and personnel away from the war on terrorism.
The 9/11 Commission investigation began 411 days after the attacks, whereas the investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK began after only 9 and 7 days, respectively.
The commission was given a startup appropriation of only $3 million and made a subsequent funding request for $11 million in order to meet its target date for completion. As a point of comparison, $50 million was set aside to investigate the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia, and $40 million was set aside to investigate Bill Clinton's lying about his indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky.


By the way, the only personal attacks I've seen have been from you.

.....we are reading the same thread right?

[thesyntaxera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy

Motives
Theories as to why members of the U.S. government would have allowed the attacks to occur, perpetrated the attacks, and/or obstructed investigation generally involve one or more of the following motives:

To justify a crusade on nations and factions the United States consider to be immoral and enemies.
To justify increased defense spending and provide financial payback to many companies that supported the Republicans in the 2000 election (e.g. Halliburton).
To gain the support of US citizens to invade the Middle East in order to control petroleum reserves in response to a peaking of global oil production. (See peak oil)
To justify the passing of certain legislation, including the USA PATRIOT Act, argued to be restrictive of certain civil rights.
To create an opportunity for the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party to seize and maintain power through increased popularity, perpetual war, and the stifling of dissenting opinions. See the PNAC reference above.
To ready the public to fight a global existential conflict between Islamic Fundamentalism and Western Civilization that neoconservatives believed was already underway but that most people were unaware of. See PNAC New Pearl Harbor reference above, Clash of Civilizations
To conceal a deeper Saudi complicity extending into the Saudi royal family and other components of the Saudi government.
To cover-up the failures of US intelligence agencies.
To distract from more important domestic issues facing America (poverty, crashing stock markets; corporate corruption (ENRON etc),lack of health care, political division).
To destroy embarrassing or incriminating materials located inside of World Trade Center Seven. According to an article in the December 7-13 2005 issue of The Village Voice, The CIA, The Secret Service, Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney all had offices located in that building
Rep. Ron Paul has written "The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive."

[thesyntaxera]

from the same wiki link

Speculation on why so few whistleblowers have come forward
A frequent argument by debunkers of 'conspiracy theories' is that such conspiracies would require a lot of people, and it would be hard to count on keeping so many potential whistleblowers quiet. In response, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, such David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, have argued that many of the people involved would likely not know the full extent of the plot. Griffin also says that it is possible that people with knowledge may have been threatened that their careers could be ruined or that even physical harm might come to them or their families. In an interview in the Santa Barbara Independent, Griffin states: “You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, 'if you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.' Would you go public with that? You have to choose between your family’s welfare and the welfare of the nation, and your story might not do that much good.”[42] Griffin elaborates that many would likely feel they have little incentive to talk in spite of such threats, given the lack of interest on the part of the mainstream media thus far. "You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you’re not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut." But, he says, a number whistleblowers such as Kevin Ryan, Sibel Edmonds, and David Schippers have actually come forward in spite of this.

[thesyntaxera]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[kookbreaker]

I see that we've entered the "Overwhelm them with links and text" phase of the arguement.

[thesyntaxera]

I see that we've entered the "Overwhelm them with links and text" phase of the arguement.


well you asked for information, I provided it....so don't complain.

theres only 5 links anyway, so if thats over whelming for you I have an idea about why we have gotten no where here.

[kookbreaker]

well you asked for information, I provided it....so don't complain.

theres only 5 links anyway, so if thats over whelming for you I have an idea about why we have gotten no where here.

No, we asked for evidence. Not speculation. Please learn the difference.

[thesyntaxera]

No, we asked for evidence. Not speculation. Please learn the difference.

Read. Point out what you don't agree with, or please, save the hostility.

[kookbreaker]

Read. Point out what you don't agree with, or please, save the hostility.

You were asked for evidence. You have provided what admits to being speculation.

This does not validate anything you have said.

Its a smokescreen.

[CurtC]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...e_amazing3.htm
That site is just nuts, and doesn't have anything to do with the 9/11 alleged conspiracies. He just thinks that skeptics are ignoring some large mass of evidence in favor of ESP-related stuff. How thoughtful, and telling, of you to post it here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.htmlThis site makes these points:

* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months.

We've already dissected this point. They fell straight down because there was nothing to push them sideways. They fell somewhat less than free-fall speed. So what?

* Many people in the buildings said that they heard or felt explosions.

So what?

* Virtually all the concrete of these enormous structures was pulverized into very fine dust.

All of it? Much was pulverized into little chunks, sure, because a giant building came crashing down. But dust? Where did he get that idea?

* Much of this dust, along with pieces of steel and aluminum, was blown out horizontally several hundred feet.

So what? Dust carries a long way. Aluminum can too. The forces of a building collapsing can break off steel chunks and throw them outwards. And doesn't this contradict the idea that it was a controlled demolition? After all, I've never seen a controlled demolition that blew out chunks for several hundred feet.

* Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.

So the idea here is that not only was it pre-rigged for demolition, but that was done in such a way as to make cleanup a snap? Is he insane? And you think this is credible???

[Year Zero]

Read. Point out what you don't agree with, or please, save the hostility.


Why should we bother? We continue to debunk the same claims and they are brought up again as though it never happened.

[thesyntaxera]

That site is just nuts, and doesn't have anything to do with the 9/11 alleged conspiracies. He just thinks that skeptics are ignoring some large mass of evidence in favor of ESP-related stuff. How thoughtful, and telling, of you to post it here.

Actually, that was a mistake I edited out, I moved that link to where I had intended it to go.

This site makes these points:

* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months.

We've already dissected this point. They fell straight down because there was nothing to push them sideways. They fell somewhat less than free-fall speed. So what?

* Many people in the buildings said that they heard or felt explosions.

So what?

* Virtually all the concrete of these enormous structures was pulverized into very fine dust.

All of it? Much was pulverized into little chunks, sure, because a giant building came crashing down. But dust? Where did he get that idea?

* Much of this dust, along with pieces of steel and aluminum, was blown out horizontally several hundred feet.

So what? Dust carries a long way. Aluminum can too. The forces of a building collapsing can break off steel chunks and throw them outwards. And doesn't this contradict the idea that it was a controlled demolition? After all, I've never seen a controlled demolition that blew out chunks for several hundred feet.

* Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.

So the idea here is that not only was it pre-rigged for demolition, but that was done in such a way as to make cleanup a snap? Is he insane? And you think this is credible???


why don't you read the wiki links that outline all of the information instead of hiding behind your rationalizations.

[thesyntaxera]

You were asked for evidence. You have provided what admits to being speculation.

This does not validate anything you have said.

Its a smokescreen.

You were too. Read the links or shut your spew hole.

[thesyntaxera]

Why should we bother? We continue to debunk the same claims and they are brought up again as though it never happened.


Zero, you have debunked ZERO.

There are all the arguments and counter arguments listed and commented upon in those 5 links. I suspect you are too lazy to investigate them.

[Year Zero]

Zero, you have debunked ZERO.

There are all the arguments and counter arguments listed and commented upon in those 5 links. I suspect you are too lazy to investigate them.


Right, we are expected to investigate all your arguments, and you are not required to do the same. I've done it before pal.

[kookbreaker]

You were too. Read the links or shut your spew hole.

I think we are starting to see a meltdown here, folks.

[thesyntaxera]

Right, we are expected to investigate all your arguments, and you are not required to do the same. I've done it before pal.

Have you? Then all of the information detailed therein should be of no task for you to debunk.

It's all supplied for you right there in 5 links, and you really only need to read one. you are too lazy to aren't you....pal.:rub:

[thesyntaxera]

I think we are starting to see a meltdown here, folks.

Yes, random internet poster melts down due to the circular rambling of internet skeptics who can't really verify their own story let alone debunk the claims they are so skeptical of...

not really melting, more like getting bored with your fits of ego driven rambling.

[kookbreaker]

Yes, random internet poster melts down due to the circular rambling of internet skeptics who can't really verify their own story let alone debunk the claims they are so skeptical of...

not really melting, more like getting bored with your fits of ego driven rambling.

No, bub. We asked for evidence, you gave us speculation and spurious claims. That doesn't cut it. Now you are lashing out and claiming it is somehow our fault.

What you have produced is volume, not quality, nothing you posted gave anyone a reason to doubt the basic story of event.

Then you attack people, substituting insults when masses of dreck failed before. You are in a classic meltdown.

[Year Zero]

Claim:* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months.



Translation: "This LOOKS like a controlled demolition to me, so it must be one.

[azazal]

I really like this one -

* Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.

Guess this is being ignored: http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html

Guess the 30 foot break couldn't be explained by the fact that the steel was shipped to the site prefab in sections that happened to be sized just right to fit onto trucks. No damnit, that's being logical again, can't do that.

[delphi_ote]

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20060103-ROSIE.jpg

Overdue.

[Year Zero]

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20060103-ROSIE.jpg

Overdue.


I don't quite get the specific meaning of this, but in some abstract way it makes a lot more sense than some of these conspiracy theories.

[Pope130]

I see that we've entered the "Overwhelm them with links and text" phase of the arguement.

Kookbreaker,
I believe this activity is properly called "Kiliking".

Robert

[Lynx2174]

Have you? Then all of the information detailed therein should be of no task for you to debunk.

It's all supplied for you right there in 5 links, and you really only need to read one. you are too lazy to aren't you....pal.:rub:

I'm suspecting that when people ask for evidence, they mean that they want you to write things in your own words, and provide sources for all things that could be considered assertions. not just posting links and copied text. that's considered extremely lazy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20060103-ROSIE.jpg

Overdue.

Now that you've started:

Simplest Roast Chicken

1 5-6lb chicken,wing tips removed
1 lemon -- halved
4 whole garlic cloves
4 tablespoons unsalted butter -- (optional)
Kosher salt to taste
Freshly ground black pepper to taste
1 cup homemade or canned chicken broth -- water,
fruit juice or wine, for deglazing

Place oven rack on second level from bottom. Heat oven to 500 degrees.
Remove the fat from the tail and crop end of the chicken. Discard the neck and giblets or freeze for making chicken stock later. Reserve chicken livers for another use.
Stuff the cavity of the chicken with the lemon, garlic and butter, if using. Season the cavity and skin with salt and pepper.
Place the chicken in a 12-by-8-by-1 1/2-inch roasting pan, breast-side up. Put in the oven legs first and roast 50 to 60 minutes, or until the juices run clear. After the first 10 minutes, move the chicken with a wooden spatula to keep it from sticking.
Remove the chicken to a platter by placing a large wooden spoon into the tail end and balancing the chicken with a kitchen spoon pressed against the crop end. As you lift the chicken, tilt it over the roasting pan so that all the juices run out of the cavity and into the pan. Pour off excess fat from the pan and put the pan on top of the stove. Add the stock or other liquid and bring to a boil, scraping the bottom vigorously with a wooden spoon. Let reduce by half. Serve the sauce over the chicken or, for crisp skin, in a sauce boat.

Makes 4 servings

Note from author Barbara Kafka: "If there is no lemon, garlic or butter on hand, Kafka says, roast the chicken without them. Or play. Use peeled shallots or a small onion, quarter ed. Add a couple of sage leaves or orange wedges. To avoid a smoky kitchen, be sure your oven is clean before you start and use the right-size pan."

[Kevin_Lowe]

Presupposing conclusions based on past evidence to extrapolate about the future is induction...this is not incorrect as you assert.


Perhaps you should just abandon the terms of formal logic entirely. Past evidence used in induction is a premise, not a conclusion, and it's not really correct to call it a presupposition either.


No, not always, and deducing properly requires all available evidence to be gathered; they didn't even test the steel for explosive residue until two years after the fact. In fact most of the independant investigation didn't occur until after the AGENDA FOR WAR was approved.


This is evidence that you simply do not understand what deduction is.

Deduction is the inference of new facts implicit in already known facts. Correctly performed, deduction is absolutely watertight. The only way a properly carried out deduction can later be falsified is if the premises are falsified, which is what I said.

If all bachelors are men, and Jean is a bachelor, it is absolutely certain that Jean is a man. No possible evidence you can later uncover will falsify this. Anything correctly deduced from true premises cannot later be falsified.

You do not need to gather all the evidence before making deductive moves. This idea is simply wrong.


Exactly, my assertion this entire time.


At least you had one thing right, although it doesn't get you where you want to go.


I strongly suggest you take a refresher course in logic. I have used plain language, so the problem is on your end, as far as I can tell...but I could be wrong.


If you take such a course, feel free to ask your lecturer or tutor about this. They will back me up.


This could be the problem, I am one of those in the "there is no place for induction in logic" camp.


I don't know how you manage to function then. Induction is necessary to get anything significant done outside the realm of mathematics.


ummm....isn't that using induction to steer your conlusion?

It could be induction or deduction. If it turned out that Jean's being male affected the direction of the inquiry, and made previously irrelevant evidence look relevant to me, then deduction would be steering the enquiry.

[Year Zero]

Most of this "evidence" is based on the assumption of people whose qualifications and knowledge is unknown. For example, Mr. Hoffman obviously wasn't aware that the people who advanced the "pancaking" theory specifically stated that the collapse would be so catastrophic that the tower would fall at "near free-fall speeds". Yet he cites "near free-fall speed" as evidence for HIS theory. Now if he is doing a serious examination of various reports, and his goal is objective truth, why would he deliberately point out that advocates of the non-demolition thoery already pointed out the "near free-fall speed"? Was it laziness? Or was it that Mr. Hoffman did not want to cite evidence that might contradict his theory?

Or let's take the "powdered concrete" claim. He makes the claim that there was powdered concrete everywhere. How do we know this? What other things in the WTC might help cause that dust? How about:

1. DUST that was already there, particularly in the air vents.

2. DRYWALL

3. ceiling tiles


How do we know Hoffman was able to somehow measure the amount of concrete dust vs. dust from other sources and of course- SOOT AND ASH?



By using the patented SILENT tactic, CTs of 9-11, Hoffman being no exception, purposely AVOID real demolitions experts like the plague. The one thing they could do to conclusively advance their hypothesis, that is create an explanation and model for demolition, is something they not only avoid but curiously ignore. Why? Look at their argument:

1. The WTC LOOKS like a demolition in are unqualified opinions. Free-fall speeds or powdered concrete had to have been from a demolition!! Etc.


Well all one needs to do is first determine how the building would have to be rigged. Then, they must determine(aside from the problems a plane crash would cause) if the demolition would DO the very things they say the collapse could NOT do!! Yes that's right folks- if we had a demolitions expert making suggestings on how the building would be demolished, and a model was creating, it may very well involve NOT putting the building into "free fall"(which it was not anyway), and might NOT create "powdered concrete".


Then what would the CTs say? Who would buy their books then?

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[Hellbound]

Actually, thysixzmnsjkdhfailuerlasjdfkdnnauksefh-whatever is right.

We Can't debunk this.

Because there is nothing there to debunk. No evidence beyond argument from ignorance and appeals to popularity. Nothing that can be debunked.

Saying something "can't be debunked" is not the same as saying something is true. There are many reasons something may not be able to be debunked:
1. It's true.
2. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis (aka IPU or Sagan's dragon)
3. There's not enough data to make any sort of authoritive determination (most UFO sightings, ghosts, and probably the majority of paranormal claims)
4. Fraud and misdirection.

The onus is not on anyone debunking a particular theory. It doesn't work that way. If you want your theory taken seriously, you have to prove it to at least the same level of proof as the currently accepted theory. So far, you've offered less evidence for your theory than the investigating committess and government officials have offered for theirs.

[Ed]

and have avoided the questions that might make one take notice:

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[delphi_ote]

Ed keeps asking the right questions. Sadly, they're not going to be answered.

But you know what makes me sad? The fact that we ALL watched this happen on T.V. about a hundred thousand times. There is so much video of the towers falling, you can pretty much see people die from any angle you like. Millions of people went to New York after the towers fell just to see the rubble. The men responsible for destroying the towers were so proud of what they did, they made video tapes of themselves praising their imaginary friend and proclaiming their guilt and then mailed the video tapes to us.

Despite this huge body of evidence and shared experience, lunatics and attention whores still just can't settle on the boring or upsetting facts. Is there any hope for reason? How can we compete with this?

[Ed]

Ed keeps asking the right questions. Sadly, they're not going to be answered.

But you know what makes me sad? The fact that we ALL watched this happen on T.V. about a hundred thousand times. There is so much video of the towers falling, you can pretty much see people die from any angle you like. Millions of people went to New York after the towers fell just to see the rubble. The men responsible for destroying the towers were so proud of what they did, they made video tapes of themselves praising their imaginary friend and proclaiming their guilt and then mailed the video tapes to us.

Despite this huge body of evidence and shared experience, lunatics and attention whores still just can't settle on the boring or upsetting facts. Is there any hope for reason? How can we compete with this?

I recall that when the first Shuttle was launched there was talk about "walk". That is that as the shuttle rose, it sort of meandered from a true verticle trajectory. Thousands of hours were spent to quantify this. At the time of the launch, the damn thing "walked" 5 times more than they anticipated. Conspiracy? The point is that there are always holes in any body of data. To knee jerk and attribute conspiracy to them is a sign of fuzzy thinking.

In this case, given the circumstances, there are holes in the data and things that are unexplained. So be it. If there were some credible reason for a conspiracy these things might take on more weight, as it is it is "walk". Abscent any sort of unifying theory as to who and why some group of persons unknown might have wanted to do this (other than the putative perps) and how it was kept secret, we are idly sitting around speculating on why the shuttle didn't go straight up.

I note one thing of interest. I provided a quote from Bin Laden wherein he took responsibility for the planning of 9/11. It was stated that there was no evidence of this. Now there is, on this record, yet, I read naught of acceptance of this fact. As with Hovind, it appears that lies will be repeated, if not here, elsewhere, and inconvienent facts will be willfully ignored.

Frankly, if there were a conspiracy, the proponents of such do a piss poor job of advancing their view. Who, why and how of course are the first order of business.

[delphi_ote]

Frankly, if there were a conspiracy, the proponents of such do a piss poor job of advancing their view.

Clearly it's all part of the plan to keep us guessing.

But seriously. What event in the history of humanity was more thoroughly documented than these towers falling? How can there even be a discussion on this subject, let alone a "debate"? There's a certain point where being a candle in the dark is just impossible.

http://www.stuffonmycat.com/media/2/20051226-DA_POD.jpg

[Belz...]

Yes, random internet poster melts down due to the circular rambling of internet skeptics who can't really verify their own story let alone debunk the claims they are so skeptical of...

not really melting, more like getting bored with your fits of ego driven rambling.

... There, there, syntax. Take your medication, and all will be well.

Damn! I don't have any pictures of CATS!

[Manny]

Damn! I don't have any pictures of CATS!It's a conspiracy to keep them from you.

[thesyntaxera]

No, we asked for evidence. Not speculation. Please learn the difference.


well, then..perhaps you can tell how you posting links is "evidence" of refutation, and me posting links that are just as speculative as the ones you post are somehow not "evidence" but just speculation.

Ed keeps asking the right questions. Sadly, they're not going to be answered.

Yeah, he sure is. He is asking me to make up a theory so he can go to town debunking it... I am to add air to an already over-swollen balloon? Hardly. He can't answer my simple questions either...so why should I engage in game playing with him?

Actually, thysixzmnsjkdhfailuerlasjdfkdnnauksefh-whatever is right.

We Can't debunk this.

Because there is nothing there to debunk. No evidence beyond argument from ignorance and appeals to popularity. Nothing that can be debunked.

Saying something "can't be debunked" is not the same as saying something is true. There are many reasons something may not be able to be debunked:
1. It's true.
2. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis (aka IPU or Sagan's dragon)
3. There's not enough data to make any sort of authoritive determination (most UFO sightings, ghosts, and probably the majority of paranormal claims)
4. Fraud and misdirection.

The onus is not on anyone debunking a particular theory. It doesn't work that way. If you want your theory taken seriously, you have to prove it to at least the same level of proof as the currently accepted theory. So far, you've offered less evidence for your theory than the investigating committess and government officials have offered for theirs.

I would thank you for being the first person in this thread that actually heard what I was saying, except that I think you are most likely trolling through here in the same manner as the rest.

There isn't enough public information, and official scrutiny of the event, and subsequent investigations to totally prove the official story to the masses.
There isn't enough evidence that was ignored to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was conspiracy....there really just isn't enough evidence gathered at all to prove sucessfully either side, and there never will be because it is all gone.

So skeptics step in and rationalize in favor of what they term to be the most logical course of events....

....and CT's jump in rationalizing whatever they wish based on the exact same evidence that was available to the skeptics.

You've made it obvious that you are going to cherry pick every claim you wish to debunk because that is easier than looking at all the claims in a wider context..something you would try to claim is me trying to get you to take the CT claims seriously no doubt... in any case you have disregarded any point of view other than your own.

If you were to draw your head out of your backside for just a second you might see at least this:

Something went catastrophically wrong in our government from the top down that allowed this to happen...perhaps not intentionally...the fallout from the event being deflected to preserve the integrity of the executive branch of government, afterward said executive branch capitalizes in everyway possible on the event to forward an agenda that by their own admission needed an attack like this to move forward.

If there was any cover up it was done to protect the government from the people...

Instead of the government protecting the people.

[kookbreaker]

well, then..perhaps you can tell how you posting links is "evidence" of refutation, and me posting links that are just as speculative as the ones you post are somehow not "evidence" but just speculation.

If you cannot tell the logical difference between specualtion as to why a passport survives a crash (one where other pieces of more fragile paper survived) and another that speculates how thousands of co-conspirators are kept completely and utterly silent by use of threats (when history has shown that this does not work) then there really is no hope for you.

[CurtC]

You've made it obvious that you are going to cherry pick every claim you wish to debunk because that is easier than looking at all the claims in a wider context..If you would prefer that we not cherry-pick the claims we want to debunk, why don't you narrow down the scope of your postings, and not put up everything that any lunatic ever dreamed up. Just give the top handful of problems with the official story for this discussion to address. Earlier, I simply picked one site you had posted, and addressed that. It was pretty much insane ranting. If there is a better argument, why don't you post just that?

Or are you saying that we shouldn't look at the credibility of each claim on its own, but should instead look at the overall picture of a conspiracy that all those claims are pointing to? Looking at the sum total of a bunch of bad data can't point in the right direction, we have to evaluate the credibility of each on its own merits.
Something went catastrophically wrong in our government from the top down that allowed this to happen...perhaps not intentionally...the fallout from the event being deflected to preserve the integrity of the executive branch of governmentIt would have been great if our government was on top of that kind of intelligence before 9/11. I'm not surprised that without any kind of precedent, they weren't. I'm also not that surprised about the administration's reluctance to have the investigation, since they would see it as after-the-fact finger pointing, which would not be good for their image.

[thesyntaxera]

If you cannot tell the logical difference between specualtion as to why a passport survives a crash (one where other pieces of more fragile paper survived) and another that speculates how thousands of co-conspirators are kept completely and utterly silent by use of threats (when history has shown that this does not work) then there really is no hope for you.

To entertain your assumption, why must it be thousands of co-conspirators? The best explanation I have heard from a ct yet is that there wasn't thousands of people to keep quiet, and the "conspiracy" was simply the upper floors of the executive branch not doing the job they were supposed to....going so far to suggest that they had fore knowledge, and let it happen. Which to me looking at all of the factors seems most likely.

Speculate on the motives if you like, but if you want to just look at the presented data that is verifiable this is the picture that is painted..there is just no way to prove it 100%.


If you would prefer that we not cherry-pick the claims we want to debunk, why don't you narrow down the scope of your postings, and not put up everything that any lunatic ever dreamed up. Just give the top handful of problems with the official story for this discussion to address. Earlier, I simply picked one site you had posted, and addressed that. It was pretty much insane ranting. If there is a better argument, why don't you post just that?

I did, it is nicely outlined in the wiki article in a easy to read format...are your eyes not working? Besides 3 of the 5 links are wiki articles which means you should not have to sift through a whole lot of material, as it is all right there.

Or are you saying that we shouldn't look at the credibility of each claim on its own, but should instead look at the overall picture of a conspiracy that all those claims are pointing to? Looking at the sum total of a bunch of bad data can't point in the right direction, we have to evaluate the credibility of each on its own merits.

First off, the data isn't any more "bad" than the data you prize, and second, no I am not saying look at all the data no matter how ridiculous. I am saying look at all the data..period, cast off what is unverifiable, and then scrutinize the rest.
I think it's funny that you guys make fun of Alex Jones. Don't get me wrong, he is wacked. However, for every claim he makes, there is documentation, either in official documents, or news stories...the point being, the only evidence you have is that which was issued by the government, specifically people appointed by the supposed conspirators, which doesn't help you in convincing anyone...

from memory I think I saw the NIST page, and 911myths...anything else I missed?

If you think that these two websites are going to overturn all of the claims in the wiki article and convince anyone that the official story is true, I think you are mistaken.

If you cannot tell the logical difference between specualtion as to why a passport survives a crash (one where other pieces of more fragile paper survived) and another that speculates how thousands of co-conspirators are kept completely and utterly silent by use of threats (when history has shown that this does not work) then there really is no hope for you.

The world is a really pretty place when it's not all black and white. Besides, I didn't know there was hope for me, I thought I was just getting picked on by people who have nothing better to do at work than troll blogs.

Besides, you can't prove there was a passport in the first place, and you can't tell me where it is now, and you can't tell me how a passport flew out of a pocket, through the plane, through the building, through the fire that was hot enough to weaken the steel, and then to land on the ground, get buried in rubble, then be found in mint condition a short time later just in time to identify Al-qaeda as a suspect they already new about.

I would also like to add to the challenge, even more specifics...

In these videos by your much loved friend Alex Jones, there are a lot of claims. Just about each one has a document or some type of verification that is trackable..ie not invented...and regardless of what you think of his tactics or approach, I am asking you to debate the information, not him.

http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911
http://www.archive.org/details/911theRoadtoTyranny

So if you can fully debunk with facts the claims in the wiki article and the claims in these videos, I will fully withdraw from this debate, and accept the official story as the way it is.

Fair enough...?

[Year Zero]

A few top level peopel in the executive branch wired the WTC for demolition, fired a missile into the Pentagon, altered planes to fly on remote control, set up some Arab patsies, and generated a cover story? Not likely.

[Ed]

You may not like it but I did address your questions. I note complete silence re. the Osma quote.

Now, with out an answer to these questions, everything you post floats, untethered.

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

Are you denying it did? If so, without clear proof I submit you are mad.



Whan a person harps on a specific word or phrase it is a sign of wooishness. Generating hypotheses based on data and testing them works for research in every scientific discipline and there is no reason to suspect that approach did not work here. Anyway, I suspect that it was looked at every which way from sunday.



Depends whats in them. I have no need, personally, to see any more photographs of people falling to their deaths. I also have zero need to see the effects of a 1000+ foot fall on a human body. Do you?



"BIN LADEN: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for. "
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/binladentext_121301.html








Inductive, deductive, it is like Ian and his one note about materialism. Evidence trumps silly theory everytime and I have not seen a jot of evidence from you yet.

Why? Who? How was it covered up?

If you can't give even some information on those things you have nothing.

[CurtC]

...going so far to suggest that they had fore knowledge, and let it happen. Which to me looking at all of the factors seems most likely.It seems likely to you that higher-ups in the executive branch knew about the attacks but decided to let them happen? You must be extremely paranoid. I don't really mean that to be an insult, but it's just how I see it.
I did, it is nicely outlined in the wiki article in a easy to read format...are your eyes not working? Besides 3 of the 5 links are wiki articles which means you should not have to sift through a whole lot of material, as it is all right there.Of those three Wikipedia articles, the first one ("9/11 conspiracy theories") is the most relevant. However, it's a huge laundry list of everything an insane person could possibly dream up. There's too much crap there to have a discussion around. Please narrow it down to a handful that you think are most credible.
Besides, you can't prove there was a passport in the first place, and you can't tell me where it is now,That can be proved to anyone with functioning critical thinking skills. Its find was documented. To your way of thinking, you couldn't prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists, because I've never seen it with my own eyes.
...and you can't tell me how a passport flew out of a pocket, through the plane, through the building, through the fire that was hot enough to weaken the steel, and then to land on the ground, get buried in rubble, then be found in mint condition a short time later just in time to identify Al-qaeda as a suspect they already new about.Sure, it flew out of a pocket of a shredded jacket, got carried in the tons of debris that swept through the building (the fires were not yet burning, or had just barely started). From there, the only possible thing that could happen to it would be to end up on the ground, the most likely thing then would be to get buried in rubble from the collapse. What part of this do you have trouble accepting?

[Manny]

A few top level peopel in the executive branch wired the WTC for demolition, fired a missile into the Pentagon, altered planes to fly on remote control, set up some Arab patsies, and generated a cover story? Not likely.Hell, if they were that good the Iraq war would have ended on the 4th of July and they really would have had Osama in Guantanamo, all ready to be paraded up Broadway two days before our election!

[Manny]

To entertain your assumption, why must it be thousands of co-conspirators? The best explanation I have heard from a ct yet is that there wasn't thousands of people to keep quiet, and the "conspiracy" was simply the upper floors of the executive branch not doing the job they were supposed to....going so far to suggest that they had fore knowledge, and let it happen. Which to me looking at all of the factors seems most likely.Then why do you keep trotting out thoroughly debunked crap like explosives in the Trade Center? Yeah, I know, I know, you keep claiming that you, personally, don't necessarily believe it. But then you trot it out AGAIN. You are, intentionally in my eyes, conflating a bizillion crazy claims which run from the completely disproven to the mostly disproven to the speculative to the proven (note: I mentioned that I agree that the FAA and the airlines erred on the issue of cockpit door protection and proffered a reasonable explanation as to why -- that disappeared from your litany instantly. Why don't you want to discuss claims on which there is at least a basic factual agreement?).

So balls to the wall time, troll. What do YOU believe? What MIGHT you believe if you had more evidence? What do you believe does not have a satisfactory explanation?

[Ed]

Put another succinct way: Who, Why, and how was it kept secret?

[SirPhilip]

"Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations."

It was only by chance I caught the whole thing live from the moment CNN started broadcasting the tower on fire, and I have to admit, I never expected either to collapse. When it did, I was startled how it came straight down, and so briefly after it was hit. When the second came down just as cleanly as a controlled demolition, I thought this was very suspicous. Especially considering the manner in which they were hit. If the buildings were designed to collapse this way, which I haven't ever heard mentioned, it was one heck of an engineering feat to work properly under those circumstances.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, sha...shame on you.." - George W. Bush

[Kevin_Lowe]

SirPhilip, if I may ask, how did you expect a building like the WTC to collapse if not straight down? On what did you base this expectation?

[SirPhilip]

SirPhilip, if I may ask, how did you expect a building like the WTC to collapse if not straight down? On what did you base this expectation?
I was expecting an area above the upper tower to perhaps collapse, or in a worst case scenario, buckle and fall off. The way the top area near evenly collapsed the lower ones just looked odd. So someone could be forgiven for wondering if it was Intelligenty designed (all puns intended). :boxedin:

[Kevin_Lowe]

I was expecting an area above the upper tower to perhaps collapse, or in a worst case scenario, buckle and fall off. The way the top area near evenly collapsed the lower ones just looked odd. So someone could be forgiven for wondering if it was Intelligenty designed (all puns intended). :boxedin:

Well, the towers did visibly buckle before they collapsed, I understand. It's just that they didn't buckle far before the supports failed at the points of impact, and at that point the whole top section fell straight down.

The effect was much like the parlour trick where a martial artist smashes a large stack of tiles or what have you. The mass of debris from the top section smashed straight through every other layer on its way to the ground because if it had enough power to break one it had enough power to break them all. Any energy lost in crumbling one floor was more than made up for by the additional weight of falling debris.

That doesn't explain WTC7 of course, which just burned and collapsed. I've never heard a terribly detailed story about how it went down. The sane reports I have read that mention it at all seem to think that burning debris from the initial impacts, debris from the collapse of the two big towers and runaway oil fires explain it. On the other hand (based on a recent discussion I had elsewhere) I believe some non-woo people think this explanation is insufficient and suspect that WTC7 was built by the Dodgy Brothers.

[thesyntaxera]

Well, the towers did visibly buckle before they collapsed, I understand. It's just that they didn't buckle far before the supports failed at the points of impact, and at that point the whole top section fell straight down.

The effect was much like the parlour trick where a martial artist smashes a large stack of tiles or what have you. The mass of debris from the top section smashed straight through every other layer on its way to the ground because if it had enough power to break one it had enough power to break them all. Any energy lost in crumbling one floor was more than made up for by the additional weight of falling debris.

That doesn't explain WTC7 of course, which just burned and collapsed. I've never heard a terribly detailed story about how it went down. The sane reports I have read that mention it at all seem to think that burning debris from the initial impacts, debris from the collapse of the two big towers and runaway oil fires explain it. On the other hand (based on a recent discussion I had elsewhere) I believe some non-woo people think this explanation is insufficient and suspect that WTC7 was built by the Dodgy Brothers.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_plan.jpg
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

There are some problems with this idea though. Namely the design of the building doesn't support that idea at all. The floors of the building were not a stack of concrete as you seem to be suggesting with your martial arts analogy. They are an intricate frame work of steel, with a central support column of 40+ steel beams that only got wider the closer you got to the ground.

The eyewitness firemen are recorded over the radio as saying that the fire is containable, and controllable...these are the guys inspecting the floors that have been severely affected.

I am not familiar, but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking.

Lastly, steel reinforced buildings would never shatter in this manner from just a collapse, you would think that the steel would bend and twist all up if it was going to fall down...but this last point is debatable I suppose.

[love]

If you would prefer that we not cherry-pick the claims we want to debunk, why don't you narrow down the scope of your postings, and not put up everything that any lunatic ever dreamed up. Just give the top handful of problems with the official story for this discussion to address. Earlier, I simply picked one site you had posted, and addressed that. It was pretty much insane ranting. If there is a better argument, why don't you post just that?

Perhaps because extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. It seems only reasonable to expect it to be a lot of work to examine. If you are unwilling to do that, then the honest answer is simply "I don't believe you". And you have honestly admitted that you have not examined all the evidence.

I understand it is hard to debunk the evidence, particularly, as you say, much of it is insane ranting. But many who have attempted to debunk it have come out of the process with a different perspective.

If one is to be open-minded one has to admit a conspiracy as a possibility, even if you prescribe it an extra-ordinarily low probability of it being true.
Believing in a conspiracy requires an extra-ordinary shift of perspective and requires one to re-evaluate a lot of beliefs. So, if you are honest, you have to carefully sift through a large amount of information, misinformation and speculation to truly evaluate the claim.

Or are you saying that we shouldn't look at the credibility of each claim on its own, but should instead look at the overall picture of a conspiracy that all those claims are pointing to?

Absolutely, otherwise each time you can come up with many different explanations, which are not overall consistent. And that is exactly what is missing in the case of the official story. An overall consistent explanation.

Only when you take all the data together does it become clear that a conspiracy is the simplest, and most readily understandable explanation.

Looking at the sum total of a bunch of bad data can't point in the right direction, we have to evaluate the credibility of each on its own merits.

Yeah, much of the data is poor, but you can use it to produce hypotheses, which you can later test. You really have to act as a dectective, which means throwing out all pre-conceptions, and reconstructing events from scratch.

For example you could start with the allegation that the jets sent out to intercept the planes were deliberately delayed.

Then you can look at all the newspaper articles which cover the timing of when the jets took off and how long they took and what speed they flew. This is all using newspaper and government sources. Then you can start putting together a picture of what happenned. Of course, it turns out to be inconsistent, so you start to understand that not all the information we have from official or media sources is entirely accurate. Then there's not much more you can do with that and you have to continue with a different topic.

Eventually a picture emerges, and it takes a while to assimilate into your own reality. Eventually things make a lot more sense.

Of course this takes patience, but I don't know what else to suggest if you want to know the truth.

[CurtC]

Only when you take all the data together does it become clear that a conspiracy is the simplest, and most readily understandable explanation.So please explain this simple, readily understandable conspiracy to use slow types. As Ed keeps asking, who, why, and how was it kept secret?

[Kevin_Lowe]

There are some problems with this idea though. Namely the design of the building doesn't support that idea at all. The floors of the building were not a stack of concrete as you seem to be suggesting with your martial arts analogy. They are an intricate frame work of steel, with a central support column of 40+ steel beams that only got wider the closer you got to the ground.


Intricate frameworks of steel break up too if you put enough pressure on them, and while the buildings may have widened the column of rubble falling on them gained weight at the same time.

I don't see how this presents a problem. This looks like another instance of the argument from uninformed incredulity: not knowing anything about the matter it looks funny to you, therefore there is an elaborate conspiracy afoot which you have cleverly detected.

This is not enough of an argument, or enough evidence, to make a rational person cry conspiracy.


The eyewitness firemen are recorded over the radio as saying that the fire is containable, and controllable...these are the guys inspecting the floors that have been severely affected.


Unless you plan to argue that all firefighters are omniscient and possessed of flawless judgement, the simplest explanation for such radio chatter is that the firefighters in question just happened to be wrong. Have you asked a firefighter if they are ever wrong about such on-the-spot judgements?


I am not familiar, but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking.


Well, if you don't even know that (and it is high school physics if not primary school physics) maybe you shouldn't be positioning yourself as an informed judge of engineering. Steel conducts heat very well. Make of it what you will.


Lastly, steel reinforced buildings would never shatter in this manner from just a collapse, you would think that the steel would bend and twist all up if it was going to fall down...but this last point is debatable I suppose.

You would think that based on what? I'm not saying I know you to be wrong from first principles, but given that you know even less than I do about physics and materials science how do you come to such a conclusion?

Edited to fix munged quote

[Belz...]

There are some problems with this idea though. Namely the design of the building doesn't support that idea at all. The floors of the building were not a stack of concrete as you seem to be suggesting with your martial arts analogy. They are an intricate frame work of steel, with a central support column of 40+ steel beams that only got wider the closer you got to the ground.

But concrete might actually have done better in that situation.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

[richardm]

Steel conducts heat very well. Make of it what you will.

Just as an aside, it's quite common for fires in modern buildings to spread along steel beams. They conduct the heat away from the heart of the fire and when they get hot enough start fires elsewhere in the building. Bad news for the firefighters who can find other fires popping up in expected places.

[SirPhilip]

The effect was much like the parlour trick where a martial artist smashes a large stack of tiles or what have you. The mass of debris from the top section smashed straight through every other layer on its way to the ground because if it had enough power to break one it had enough power to break them all. Any energy lost in crumbling one floor was more than made up for by the additional weight of falling debris.Good point, that addresses much of my suspicion quite nicely.

[delphi_ote]

The eyewitness firemen are recorded over the radio as saying that the fire is containable, and controllable...these are the guys inspecting the floors that have been severely affected.

Do you have a source for this information? Of course not. Conspiracy theorists never need to site references. That just slows down the "making crap up" process.

Assuming this is true, what floor were these firefighters on? Higher than the 93rd? Somehow I doubt that. There is no way they were to the most severely affected floors.

But let's assume they were. They're in a burning building with only a few minutes to make a guess. Looking at the facts with the hind sight of history, even if they did make this assessment, they were wrong.

Might I suggest something? Get a hobby.

[Year Zero]

Do you have a source for this information? Of course not. Conspiracy theorists never need to site references. That just slows down the "making crap up" process.

Assuming this is true, what floor were these firefighters on? Higher than the 93rd? Somehow I doubt that. There is no way they were to the most severely affected floors.

But let's assume they were. They're in a burning building with only a few minutes to make a guess. Looking at the facts with the hind sight of history, even if they did make this assessment, they were wrong.

Might I suggest something? Get a hobby.

Conspiracy nuts are funny when it comes to eyewitnesses. To use Snyantxcffaaerea's example: An eyewitness account that really says nothing(assuming it happened), basically an initial opinion, must be taken to be true beyond all question. However, eyewitness accounts that contradict this are totally unreliable.

[Ed]

It would be interesting to create a CT out of, say, the deaths of those miners. I bet you could find a ton of "inconsistancies" and "odd coincidences" if you looked hard enough.

But, like the WTC CT, it would fail because no one could answer the key questions ...

Who? Why? How was it covered up.

[thesyntaxera]

Do you have a source for this information? Of course not. Conspiracy theorists never need to site references. That just slows down the "making crap up" process.

I did post my reference, you just didn't watch it. The fireman in question were angery that they had been silenced and that the tape was sealed, so they released key portions of the tape to the public in violation of the gag order. YOU can hear the entire recording at letsroll.org in the media section and the recording in question is a featured segment of the Alex Jones film martial law.

I have posted all the information above, read and watch, but don't waste your and my time with assinine posts where all you are doing is demonstrating how little you are aware of.

Assuming this is true, what floor were these firefighters on? Higher than the 93rd? Somehow I doubt that. There is no way they were to the most severely affected floors.

really, why don't you listen to the recording yourself? Ooh! That would be too much effort, as you say...if you want to debunk this idea than do the homework.

But let's assume they were. They're in a burning building with only a few minutes to make a guess. Looking at the facts with the hind sight of history, even if they did make this assessment, they were wrong.

Well, good, because they were there.... A few minutes? Looking at the facts? Make a guess? First off, there are no facts that indicate there was structural damage to the core of both towers, and in fact the second impact suggests that the explosion and impact veered to the right and out of the building totally missing the key support columns in the center. The things you call facts are guesses that were made because demolition was a cause that was ruled out day one before any investigation had been done. In fact the commissions investigation didn't begin until 144 days later.

why don't you just watch the two video's and read the links, and no I am not going to cherry pick them for you. You guys are the ones who claimed from page one that you could debunk this and that anyone who believes anything related to the CT claims is crazy.

So prove it.

You all keep saying the burden of evidence is on the CT'er. I say the official story is an conspiracy theory explanation, and since it is woefully lacking in evidence, the burden of proof is on you, because all of the evidence points the other way...the other way being, not the official version.

In fact, it has taken a lot of "inductive" guesses to come to the conlusions of the official version, which to me suggests that the official version does not pass the Occams Razor test.

Might I suggest something? Get a hobby.

Suggestion noted, but I would just like to point out that you are posting here just as I am...maybe a new hobby would be good for you as well.

NOW READ THE LINKS AND WATCH THE VIDEO'S...then attempt to debunk all of Alex's document sources, and all of the claims in the articles at Wiki.

you said you have done this before, so it should be no task for your legion of skepticism.

If you can't...then you have been lying this whole time, and as easy as it is for you to term me dishonest because I misquote a few sources, trust that it will be just as easy for me to label you sychophantic, fraudulant liars if you can't back up a single thing you say.


Conspiracy nuts are funny when it comes to eyewitnesses. To use Snyantxcffaaerea's example: An eyewitness account that really says nothing(assuming it happened), basically an initial opinion, must be taken to be true beyond all question. However, eyewitness accounts that contradict this are totally unreliable.

So what are the eye witness accounts that contradict this? And what about the eyewitness accounts that aren't sure if it was a jet that hit the pentagon, and the multitudes of other eyewitness accounts in this case that contradict one another?

[Ed]

What about my Osma quote?

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[delphi_ote]

First off, there are no facts that indicate there was structural damage to the core of both towers...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040720/040720_worldTradeCenter_hLarge_3p.hlarge.jpg

I'm done talking to you.

[thesyntaxera]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040720/040720_worldTradeCenter_hLarge_3p.hlarge.jpg

I'm done talking to you.

Good, I am glad for you. Not that you were really talking with me anyway. I grow weary of your pseudo nit-picking as it is. Saying that the towers fell with a picture is in no way proof that the 40 support beams in the center of both towers were damaged enough to allow a fire to bring them down in a manner that looks like a controlled demolition but isn't.


What about my Osma quote?

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

What about it? Why do you keep barking up this tree? Can you verify independently that it was him who said it?

Regardless, it is probably safe to assume he did say it, because he was probably just as shocked at the outcome as we americans were, I think he mentions this.

If you want me to say that I misquoted, I already admitted that. So what does your argument based on the official story win...?

Nothing.

I'm still waiting on all these facts and experts that are supposed to blow me away...still waiting for your refutations of the supplied information...."still waiting" seems to be a theme on this thread.

If you are not posting because you feel that no amount of evidence will convince me, you are mistaken. I welcome any evidence you have, but expect it to be scrutinized in the same way I would look at any conspiracy video or website making claims as outlandish as the official story.

[Kevin_Lowe]

why don't you just watch the two video's and read the links, and no I am not going to cherry pick them for you. You guys are the ones who claimed from page one that you could debunk this and that anyone who believes anything related to the CT claims is crazy.


No. How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

How hard is that?

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.


In fact, it has taken a lot of "inductive" guesses to come to the conlusions of the official version, which to me suggests that the official version does not pass the Occams Razor test.


I suggest that when you do so, you avoid the use of formal logical terminology too.

So what are the eye witness accounts that contradict this? And what about the eyewitness accounts that aren't sure if it was a jet that hit the pentagon, and the multitudes of other eyewitness accounts in this case that contradict one another?

I think you misunderstood.

The woo methodology is to pick a conclusion beforehand, usually "It's all a conspiracy!". Then eyewitness reports that support this conclusion are presented as being absolutely accurate, and eyewitness accounts that do not support this conclusion are dismissed.

For example eyewitnesses who saw the plane which hit the Pentagon, or who cleared up pieces of the shattered aircraft from the impact site are assumed to be liars, fools or government plants if their statements are mentioned by the conspiracy theorist at all. Eyewitnesses who aren't sure if it was a plane or not are assumed to be perfect observers.

Then, amusingly, the conspiracy theorists position themselves as objective investigators and accuse others of doing exactly this kind of biased cherry-picking if they disagree with their conspiracy theory.

[delphi_ote]

No. How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

He wants you to find the evidence for him. He wants to convince you the evidence is there with assertions rather than presenting it to you. He doesn't present his own credentials or expertise on this matter. He simply makes assertions (making sure they're vague enough that he can backtrack if necessary, of course) and then demands that you prove him wrong. This person is not intellectually honest.

And this "conversation" is a waste of time. You're talking to a man hell bent on living in a universe where the idea that a jet plane colliding at full speed with a building and causing massive structural failure (while everyone in the world is watching!) is totally ridiculous, but building said building and placing explosives inside to deliberately destroy it for no reason at all is totally logical. Reality isn't good enough for him. This is the worst kind of human being, abusing the memories of thousands of people to get 10 minutes of jollies on the internet. At least the moon landing deniers have the courage to lie about people with enough breath in them to throw the haymaker to the jaw the liars are always asking for.

If he could actually supply us with a reason our leaders would conspire to destroy this building, we might have something. For now, he's just a lunatic accusing people of murder he's never even met without supplying means, motive, or opportunity because a massive building looked strange to him when it fell over. Your wit is wasted on this clown. Put him in the same bin as the Holocaust deniers and move on.

[Belz...]

The fireman in question were angery that they had been silenced and that the tape was sealed, so they released key portions of the tape to the public in violation of the gag order.

Who cares what the fireman said, really ? What are you saying ?

Well, good, because they were there.... A few minutes? Looking at the facts? Make a guess? First off, there are no facts that indicate there was structural damage to the core of both towers, and in fact the second impact suggests that the explosion and impact veered to the right and out of the building totally missing the key support columns in the center.

Apparently your knowledge of skyscrapers, fires and impacts is not very impressive. Even if the plane missed the key components of the support structure, the fire could have caused more damage than you realise. After all, the heat didn't need to MELT or somehow BREAK the steel... just heat it enough for it to expand. I'm certain you remember your elementary physics: metals expand when heated.

You guys are the ones who claimed from page one that you could debunk this and that anyone who believes anything related to the CT claims is crazy.

So prove it.

Unnecessary. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, self-defeating. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human behaviour knows that people involved in conspiracies tend to TALK about what they've done. It's been said, in fact, that the best conspiracies work when only one person is involved. In case you didn't get that, at that point it's no longer a conspiracy.

In addition, CTs generally tend to get bigger and bigger as they are debunked, necessitating more and more people, which, as stated above, is self-defeating.

You all keep saying the burden of evidence is on the CT'er. I say the official story is an conspiracy theory explanation, and since it is woefully lacking in evidence, the burden of proof is on you, because all of the evidence points the other way...the other way being, not the official version.

Now you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of science and inquiry in general. The official, accepted story IS the default explanation. Any competing theory bears the burden of proof. How does "all the evidence" point the other way if at least SOME of the evidence doesn't ?

In fact, it has taken a lot of "inductive" guesses to come to the conlusions of the official version, which to me suggests that the official version does not pass the Occams Razor test.

Fascinating. Now you demonstrate lack of knowledge of Occam's razor.

you said you have done this before, so it should be no task for your legion of skepticism.

Our name is legion, for we are many. Not nearly enough, unfortunately.

So what are the eye witness accounts that contradict this? And what about the eyewitness accounts that aren't sure if it was a jet that hit the pentagon, [...]?

Syntaxman, assuming the CT is correct, why in the blue HELL would they NOT send a plane into the pentagon anyway ? What would [a missile ?] accomplish that a plane couldn't ? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a plane so eyewitnesses can CONFIRM the event ? Doesn't make sense to me.

Saying that the towers fell with a picture is in no way proof that the 40 support beams in the center of both towers were damaged enough to allow a fire to bring them down in a manner that looks like a controlled demolition but isn't.

First off, I don't think all 40 need to be damaged in order for the building to collapse. I mean, rip ONE of my legs off and I'll have trouble standing, especially if I'm stuck to the ground and can't hop.

Second, considering the amount of damage surrounding buildings were subjected to, I don't see how you can say the WTC collapse looked controlled. Would you elaborate ?

I'm still waiting on all these facts and experts that are supposed to blow me away...still waiting for your refutations of the supplied information...."still waiting" seems to be a theme on this thread.

Indeed. Have you EVER visited a site about this subject that happens to disagree with you ? Did you ever CONSIDER that you may be wrong ?

[CurtC]

NOW READ THE LINKS AND WATCH THE VIDEO'S...then attempt to debunk all of Alex's document sources, and all of the claims in the articles at Wiki.I TRIED WATCHING THAT DAMN ALEX VIDEO! (there, I can use caps too). I made it through ten minutes, which were so full of lies and distortions that I decided not to waste my time with the rest. It was talking about how you can see missiles hitting the buildings just ahead of the planes. He's an idiot - he can't comprehend simple things because his mind is so clouded with the conspiracy obsession.

Was there something in there that was good? Can you pick a handful and bring them up specifically?

[Ed]

What about my Osma quote?

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

..

[Flange Desire]

..
wot e said

who, why, and how?

[thesyntaxera]

He wants you to find the evidence for him. He wants to convince you the evidence is there with assertions rather than presenting it to you. He doesn't present his own credentials or expertise on this matter. He simply makes assertions (making sure they're vague enough that he can backtrack if necessary, of course) and then demands that you prove him wrong. This person is not intellectually honest.

You sure seem to be making some assumptions about me, not that I am surprised. My assertions are non existent as I have previously stated. The only claim I have stuck by is that there is a ton of circumstantial loose ends that need verified, and/or investigated, that no real deductive investigation was done, and that in light of the the circumstances leading up to attack, during the attack, and after, there is more than enough cause to look at this again.


And this "conversation" is a waste of time. You're talking to a man hell bent on living in a universe where the idea that a jet plane colliding at full speed with a building and causing massive structural failure (while everyone in the world is watching!) is totally ridiculous, but building said building and placing explosives inside to deliberately destroy it for no reason at all is totally logical.

I have never said that ever. I have said what is written above. I have addressed various claims, I never suggested that were totally logical, although I am starting to feel that logic isn't something you are used to using yourself.

You must admit however, in regard to the impacts and collapses that they appear as though they are controlled demolitions, and that it takes some hand picked experts to say otherwise....even though there are plenty of other experts not appointed by the executive branch that disagree.

Reality isn't good enough for him. This is the worst kind of human being, abusing the memories of thousands of people to get 10 minutes of jollies on the internet.

According to you I guess. Thanks, I appreciate your uninformed opinion of me you soulless jerk. I am not abusing any memories...didn't you hear? 9/11 families make up the vast majority of people in favor of the 9/11 truth movement....I could be one of them....but who knows, I could be the worst kind of human being...I call for more investigation while you defend the insitution that kills thousands every year....


If he could actually supply us with a reason our leaders would conspire to destroy this building, we might have something. For now, he's just a lunatic accusing people of murder he's never even met without supplying means, motive, or opportunity because a massive building looked strange to him when it fell over. Your wit is wasted on this clown. Put him in the same bin as the Holocaust deniers and move on.

This is a blantant lie. I have done everything that you suggest I haven't. You are just too right brained to be bothered with it. Why should you have to read all the information, why should you have to research it all yourself...because, you said you have already...you said you could debunk it...so do so, there are sources, the wiki article is more than enough, not to mention all of the documents referenced in the alex jones video's..(another thing to add...apparently alex jones predicted the attacks based on the information coming out of washington months before the attack)
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/260804alexwarns.WMV

You have not debunked a single one using the excuse that you are waiting for me to pick out claims for you to analyze...which is a bunch of crap...why not just say that you are too lazy and disinterested to be bothered instead of lying about your ability to discredit. It's easier to attack the voice that brings it up than look for yourself apparently.


who, why, and how

I have already answered this, but since apparently god wasn't paying attention I will write it again.

I suggested earlier in this thread that my personal belief is that none of the popular conspiracy theories could be 100% true. I also suggested that within the available evidence as outlined in the wiki article the two alex jones video's, not to mention several other video's and web sites, there is more than enough cause for concern- all outstanding CT's aside.

Personally, I feel that with what I know about the relations between the saudi's, the bin ladens, the bush family, as well as members of the executive branch, PNAC, the carlyle group...etc it is hard to say that there isn't some conspiring going on.

If you want motive there is plenty...by plenty I mean billions...the future security of energy, peak oil, middle east security...etc..etc...essentially, the entire future of this country, but more importantly how the future of this country is shaped by those in power.

Who stood to benefit? I think you already know.

Does that mean they are guilty of planning 911...no.

In my view the members of the executive branch named as conspirators are most likely nothing more than bad politicians that used their postions to put forward an unpopular and harmfull agenda, they utilized mass media idea control to keep the populace concerned about other things in the meantime. They covered up any harmfull connections between themselves and the terror organizations/governments involved, they impeded anything that would reveal any information about these connections...the motive being preservation of power...

In short they went on damage control.

I have had the impression for a long time that bin Laden, or someone who possibly hired bin Laden had insight into these connections and sought to inflict a double blow, both to the Saudi Royals and the American Power Elite in an effort to destablize the region there and create chaos here...possibly revolution.

In summary: The disinformation, and confusion of 9/11 is a symptom of the cover up that was enacted as a reaction to the potential blow bin Laden could have struck with the attacks.

The Saudi Royals and the Bush family had everything to lose if the details of their relationship were outed to the world....assuming that the details are not all rosy...which I doubt they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

so anyway, flame on you crazy skeptics.

also read and watch my sources instead of engaging in the cro-magnon skeptical crotch grabbing that seems to be the popular way for you guys to communicate.

[Year Zero]

First of all, you need to make claims, then verify them. If your claim is simply something like: A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, this is easily disproven by the black boxes, plane debris found in and outside the building, the downed streetlamps in front of the crash site, and numerous eyewitness reports.

If you claim something is inadequate, or inconclusive, you need to specify what it is, and WHY you claim it is so.

[thesyntaxera]

see edit.

[thesyntaxera]

First of all, you need to make claims, then verify them. If your claim is simply something like: A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, this is easily disproven by the black boxes, plane debris found in and outside the building, the downed streetlamps in front of the crash site, and numerous eyewitness reports.

If you claim something is inadequate, or inconclusive, you need to specify what it is, and WHY you claim it is so.

This is done to death in the information provided...watch it, read it...verify it yourself, because I am not going to do the work you claim to have done already....


btw...how were you banned from hannity's forum in 24 hours...?

[Year Zero]

This is done to death in the information provided...watch it, read it...verify it yourself, because I am not going to do the work you claim to have done already....


btw...how were you banned from hannity's forum in 24 hours...?


And claims in that video have already been debunked. If you support that video can we assume that any claim it makes is the claim that YOU are supporting/asserting?


I got banned from Hannity's forum for something called "Contempt of Host" for pointing out a verifiable lie that Hannity had repeated several times.

[thesyntaxera]

And claims in that video have already been debunked. If you support that video can we assume that any claim it makes is the claim that YOU are supporting/asserting?

So you have debunked the multiple news sources, and government issued documents he cites in them...?? You can assume whatever you want, or you could actually watch the video's.

As I said previously, ignore his claims about the evidence he presents, and just look at the documentation.


I got banned from Hannity's forum for something called "Contempt of Host" for pointing out a verifiable lie that Hannity had repeated several times.

LOL...Well, he is a great american......

[thesyntaxera]

Who cares what the fireman said, really ? What are you saying ?

I do, because they were there on the burning floor directly observing the fire as it burned radioing back to inform the ground that the fire was containable.



Apparently your knowledge of skyscrapers, fires and impacts is not very impressive. Even if the plane missed the key components of the support structure, the fire could have caused more damage than you realise. After all, the heat didn't need to MELT or somehow BREAK the steel... just heat it enough for it to expand. I'm certain you remember your elementary physics: metals expand when heated.

So what does that have to do with the building falling like a house of cards? No it didn't need to break or melt it...but it needed to essentially knock out all of the steel on a floor for the pancake theory to work. Are you saying that a entire floor was incinerated in a hour, to the point where the whole building could fall down? What about the reinforced unaffected lower floors?



Unnecessary. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, self-defeating. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human behaviour knows that people involved in conspiracies tend to TALK about what they've done. It's been said, in fact, that the best conspiracies work when only one person is involved. In case you didn't get that, at that point it's no longer a conspiracy.

The official story is a conspiracy theory. They did talk, we heard, we did nothing...

In addition, CTs generally tend to get bigger and bigger as they are debunked, necessitating more and more people, which, as stated above, is self-defeating.

Except that this one hasn't for the most part, it's been pretty consistant....at least from the 9/11 truth folks. The people at letsroll are kind of wack...I was reading the forums, and they are attributing some of the damage to experimental ball lightning weapons....whatever that means.....

Now you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of science and inquiry in general. The official, accepted story IS the default explanation. Any competing theory bears the burden of proof. How does "all the evidence" point the other way if at least SOME of the evidence doesn't ?

So the official story, something that is well documented to be a poor excuse for an investigation in the first place, does not suffer the burden of truth?

Fascinating. Now you demonstrate lack of knowledge of Occam's razor.

Occams razor would suggest the the two wtc towers and wtc7 were brought down by explosives. It took government appointed "experts" analyzing the same video evidence to determine that it was remotely possible for the buildings to come down in the way acsribed to in the official account.

why would they NOT send a plane into the pentagon anyway ? What would [a missile ?] accomplish that a plane couldn't ? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a plane so eyewitnesses can CONFIRM the event ? Doesn't make sense to me.

An argument I have seen used in the book and documentary painfull deceptions is that it was a plane, or more like a drone, that was rigged to explode..namely a global hawk, which the ct's think is more consistent with the visible evidence. Did they fit that whole plane under the blue tarp?

First off, I don't think all 40 need to be damaged in order for the building to collapse. I mean, rip ONE of my legs off and I'll have trouble standing, especially if I'm stuck to the ground and can't hop.

You legs aren't 40 steel beams that were wider at the bottom than at the top, and they weren't designed to sustain multiple 707 impacts as the building designer states, and they aren't designed to shift wieght around the way most sky scrapers are built...imagine if they were rigid, the wouldn't be able to stand for very long...

Second, considering the amount of damage surrounding buildings were subjected to, I don't see how you can say the WTC collapse looked controlled. Would you elaborate ?

Sure, building 7 is the furthest away from ground zero. Care to explain how it caught on fire in the first place? Care to explain why the closer buildings didn't sustain similar damage? Care to explain why only Larry Silverstein's buildings were the ones that collapsed?

Wtc7 looks that way is why. In the first few minutes of loose change they compare clips of it next to multiple clips of other controlled demolitions, and they look identical.

There is the pull it reference too...in Martial Law there is a clip from the demolitions of the remaining structures, and they use the term "pull it" to blatantly mean demolish. The efforts to say that he meant, "pull the rescue workers out" are debased by the fact that there were no rescue workers in the building by that time.

Indeed. Have you EVER visited a site about this subject that happens to disagree with you ? Did you ever CONSIDER that you may be wrong ?

Yes, all the time.

[Belz...]

I do, because they were there on the burning floor directly observing the fire as it burned radioing back to inform the ground that the fire was containable.

Again: they didn't, and couldn't, see the structural damage. They thought the fire was containable, but they were wrong. You know... if doctors can misdiagnose a cancer after hours of scrutinizing you, firemen in the heat of the moment can be wrong, too.

So what does that have to do with the building falling like a house of cards? No it didn't need to break or melt it...but it needed to essentially knock out all of the steel on a floor for the pancake theory to work. Are you saying that a entire floor was incinerated in a hour, to the point where the whole building could fall down? What about the reinforced unaffected lower floors?

Syntax, if enough steel beams expand to the point where the floor can no longer support what's above it, the upper floors will collapse, and I'm pretty sure no scycraper can withstand a block of 15 stories falling on itself.

The official story is a conspiracy theory. They did talk, we heard, we did nothing...

So they did talk, didn't they ? Thanks.

Occams razor would suggest the the two wtc towers and wtc7 were brought down by explosives.

How so ? Occam's razor is the "law" of the "simplest" exaplanation. That means making as few assumptions as possible. With the EVIDENCE we have, which does NOT point to demolition, Occam's razor tells us that the buildings were NOT brought down by explosives. In order to believe that they were, we have to make a number of unsupported assumptions.

An argument I have seen used in the book and documentary painfull deceptions is that it was a plane, or more like a drone, that was rigged to explode..namely a global hawk, which the ct's think is more consistent with the visible evidence. Did they fit that whole plane under the blue tarp?

Again: WHY WOULDN'T THEY use the actual plane ? The actual model ? Why go through all the trouble of having to cover it up afterwards ?

Sure, building 7 is the furthest away from ground zero. Care to explain how it caught on fire in the first place? Care to explain why the closer buildings didn't sustain similar damage? Care to explain why only Larry Silverstein's buildings were the ones that collapsed?

Just because they're all owned by the same person or company does not prove anything. It's called circumstancial evidence. The fact that it's the furthest building is meaningless: did you SEE the damage to it before it collapsed ? And I certainly didn't hear any explosions on the tapes, and it didn't really fall in a controlled manner. Neither did the towers.

But then, if they wanted to destroy the towers with explosives, why didn't they plant the explosives in the first place and call it a terrorist bombing ?

There is the pull it reference too...in Martial Law there is a clip from the demolitions of the remaining structures, and they use the term "pull it" to blatantly mean demolish. The efforts to say that he meant, "pull the rescue workers out" are debased by the fact that there were no rescue workers in the building by that time.

I'm sure firefighters use demolition terms, yeah.

[thesyntaxera]

Again: they didn't, and couldn't, see the structural damage. They thought the fire was containable, but they were wrong. You know... if doctors can misdiagnose a cancer after hours of scrutinizing you, firemen in the heat of the moment can be wrong, too.

you go ahead and trust speculation, I will go ahead and give credit to those who were staring at it. Cancer and fire makes no analogy. Firemen are trained to deal with and assess fires.



Syntax, if enough steel beams expand to the point where the floor can no longer support what's above it, the upper floors will collapse, and I'm pretty sure no scycraper can withstand a block of 15 stories falling on itself.

So is your explanation in the "pretty sure" part of this comment. For the entire building to shatter, the entire building would have to have been affected, otherwise, the same laws of physics you say brought it down, would have held up, you make it sound like when steel gets hot it becomes unreliable, if I follow you logic, then this destruction should be repeatable and testable...it is not. The computer models used in demonstrating this convieniently leave out the center column from the equation. Building 7 comes down practically in unison on the exterior, with the middle imploding....like a demolition....


How so ? Occam's razor is the "law" of the "simplest" exaplanation. That means making as few assumptions as possible. With the EVIDENCE we have, which does NOT point to demolition, Occam's razor tells us that the buildings were NOT brought down by explosives. In order to believe that they were, we have to make a number of unsupported assumptions.

MY point is that if the government said it was controlled demolitions, you wouldn't be saying that the fire brought it down, you would be saying...

"look at all the video evidence supporting the demolition theory..."



Again: WHY WOULDN'T THEY use the actual plane ? The actual model ? Why go through all the trouble of having to cover it up afterwards?

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk? AS you may have noticed, the flight path of the plane brings it in to just about two feet off the ground, most real pilots talk about how difficult it is to bring a huge plane down that fast without crashing into the dirt first.


read and watch....don't be dumb.

[Belz...]

NOTE: Please include my name in your replies, so I don't have to read the entire post to assess if you're replying to me.

you go ahead and trust speculation, I will go ahead and give credit to those who were staring at it. Cancer and fire makes no analogy. Firemen are trained to deal with and assess fires.

Speculation ? COULD they or could they NOT see the STRUCTURAL damage in the building ? There is no way that they could see how the structure was doing, seeing as though they weren't inside. My cancer example simply shows that seasoned specialists can make mistakes even when they're staring right at a tumor. And they're in no hurry. Imagine in a firefighter's situation.

For the entire building to shatter, the entire building would have to have been affected, otherwise, the same laws of physics you say brought it down, would have held up,

How could it possible handle the mass coming down on it ? Can you imagine the stress on each floor as the top of the tower collapsed on it ?

you make it sound like when steel gets hot it becomes unreliable, if I follow you logic, then this destruction should be repeatable and testable...it is not. The computer models used in demonstrating this convieniently leave out the center column from the equation.

What center column ? Are we talking about the same towers ?

Building 7 comes down practically in unison on the exterior, with the middle imploding....like a demolition....

Even if that were true, "like" doesn't mean "is".

MY point is that if the government said it was controlled demolitions, you wouldn't be saying that the fire brought it down, you would be saying...

"look at all the video evidence supporting the demolition theory..."

Of course, but this isn't the case, so your point is moot.

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk? AS you may have noticed, the flight path of the plane brings it in to just about two feet off the ground, most real pilots talk about how difficult it is to bring a huge plane down that fast without crashing into the dirt first.

Haven't answered my question: wouldn't it be far easier to use the REAL plane than cover it up ?

read and watch....don't be dumb.

Tread lightly. Don't start an insult match with Belz...

[kookbreaker]

you go ahead and trust speculation, I will go ahead and give credit to those who were staring at it. Cancer and fire makes no analogy. Firemen are trained to deal with and assess fires.


And they never make mistakes assessing fires, that is why no fireman has ever died in the line of duty.

</SARCASM>

[kookbreaker]

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk? .

Because it adds more complication to a conspiracy claim that is already loaded down with complications. When a Global Hawk enters the equation, you now need to account for the original plane, the pilots, the passengers, you need to add another hidden landing strip for launching your global hawk (unless you think planes take off like cars pull out of parking spaces). You need another pilot to control it (remotely or otherwise), etc. etc. etc.

[Manny]

In my view the members of the executive branch named as conspirators are most likely nothing more than bad politicians that used their postions to put forward an unpopular and harmfull agenda, they utilized mass media idea control to keep the populace concerned about other things in the meantime. They covered up any harmfull connections between themselves and the terror organizations/governments involved, they impeded anything that would reveal any information about these connections...the motive being preservation of power...

In short they went on damage control.

I have had the impression for a long time that bin Laden, or someone who possibly hired bin Laden had insight into these connections and sought to inflict a double blow, both to the Saudi Royals and the American Power Elite in an effort to destablize the region there and create chaos here...possibly revolution.

In summary: The disinformation, and confusion of 9/11 is a symptom of the cover up that was enacted as a reaction to the potential blow bin Laden could have struck with the attacks.If that's all you believe, then why do you keep referring to crap like:


Occams razor would suggest the the two wtc towers and wtc7 were brought down by explosives. It took government appointed "experts" analyzing the same video evidence to determine that it was remotely possible for the buildings to come down in the way acsribed to in the official account.and
An argument I have seen used in the book and documentary painfull deceptions is that it was a plane, or more like a drone, that was rigged to explode..namely a global hawk, which the ct's think is more consistent with the visible evidence. Did they fit that whole plane under the blue tarp?and
Sure, building 7 is the furthest away from ground zero. Care to explain how it caught on fire in the first place? Care to explain why the closer buildings didn't sustain similar damage? Care to explain why only Larry Silverstein's buildings were the ones that collapsed?

Wtc7 looks that way is why. In the first few minutes of loose change they compare clips of it next to multiple clips of other controlled demolitions, and they look identical.

[richardm]

Why wouldn't they use a global hawk?
Apart from anything else, it's far too small to pass off as a 757. It's 40 feet long vs. 155 feet, and weighs 25,600 lbs vs 255,000 lbs. Plus, it doesn't look remotely like a commercial airliner. So all the people who say they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon would say "No way was that a 757! It's was some titchy weird looking thing. Must be a cover-up!".

They are not saying this.

QED.

Apologies if this has already been covered.

[Hutch]

There is the pull it reference too...in Martial Law there is a clip from the demolitions of the remaining structures, and they use the term "pull it" to blatantly mean demolish. The efforts to say that he meant, "pull the rescue workers out" are debased by the fact that there were no rescue workers in the building by that time.

As most of your other points have been dealt with competently, I'll make a couple of remarks on the above.

The full quote is as follows:

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it (WTC7)." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

In context, the pull it reference seems to describe quite clearly that the effort to fight the fire there and the personnel involved were what should be pulled. Not the building.

And admittedly my experience is limited to various TV shows, but at no time have I heard controlled demolition people describing their work, they use the term "Drop it" or "Dropping". I never recall the term "Pull it" used in describing a controlled demolition, but would be interested in finding that professional demolitions folks use that term--if you can find said references.

Press on.

[kookbreaker]

And admittedly my experience is limited to various TV shows, but at no time have I heard controlled demolition people describing their work, they use the term "Drop it" or "Dropping". I never recall the term "Pull it" used in describing a controlled demolition, but would be interested in finding that professional demolitions folks use that term--if you can find said references.

Press on.

JayUtah, of the BAUT forums, is a Civil Engineer. The demo groups he talked to use the term 'Shoot'. 'Pull' is too likely to be mistaken for an instruction on setting up the rig.

Supervisor: Pull that wire around the corner over there!
Demolitionist: Pulling!
Supervisor: Not you! Oh crud.

[Hutch]

Apart from anything else, it's far too small to pass off as a 757. It's 40 feet long vs. 155 feet, and weighs 25,600 lbs vs 255,000 lbs. Plus, it doesn't look remotely like a commercial airliner. So all the people who say they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon would say "No way was that a 757! It's was some titchy weird looking thing. Must be a cover-up!".

They are not saying this.

QED.

Apologies if this has already been covered.

For reference points, again, if covered previously my apologies

GLobal Hawk:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/images/photos/2004-11/photoessay/tpi110204a2.jpg


Boeing 757:

http://sensiblyeclectic.com/b2evolution/blogs/media/american_b757.jpg


I have ridden my share of 757's. I have also seen a Global Hawk closer than most Americans have. I don't think there is much trouble telling one from the other. IMHO as always.

[kookbreaker]

For reference points, again, if covered previously my apologies

GLobal Hawk:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/images/photos/2004-11/photoessay/tpi110204a2.jpg



You know, it may not be that big, but you'd think someone would notice they were missing one. Oh wait, 'they' are in on the conpsiracy too. Add more complcations.

This is why you are stupid thesyntaxera. You claim to be thinking, but you're not.

[azazal]

Why do I feel that it would take a "psychic" channeling Atta to convince CTers?

[Belz...]

This is why you are stupid thesyntaxera. You claim to be thinking, but you're not.

There, there, Breaker. Let's not make a fistfight out of this.

[Manny]

You know, it may not be that big, but you'd think someone would notice they were missing one. I think the bigger problem is that at some point along the way American Airlines might notice that they are not missing a 757. Also, then-Soliciter General (and presumbably conspirator) Theodore Olsen might notice that his wife is not dead.

[delphi_ote]

There, there, Breaker. Let's not make a fistfight out of this.

C'mon. The guy is begging for an Aldrin.

[Belz...]

C'mon. The guy is begging for an Aldrin.

Wow. I actually get it! Thank you mr.Hoagland.

[Blackwell]

I have had the impression for a long time that bin Laden, or someone who possibly hired bin Laden had insight into these connections and sought to inflict a double blow, both to the Saudi Royals and the American Power Elite in an effort to destablize the region there and create chaos here...possibly revolution.

Sure, bin Laden came from a rich, highly-connected Saudi family. I can see how this could be seen as a blow to the Saudi royals. What I'm not clear on is how you see the potential for a revolution here. Anybody with the ability to plan and carry out the attacks could have easily foreseen the galvanizing effect it had on the American public. Could you explain how this could have lead to a revolution?

In summary: The disinformation, and confusion of 9/11 is a symptom of the cover up that was enacted as a reaction to the potential blow bin Laden could have struck with the attacks.
So there was a cover up of the POTENTIAL blow bin Laden COULD HAVE struck with the attacks? Please clarify - are you saying that the American Power Elite™ covered up something that DIDN'T happen?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thesyntaxera? How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

I asked this on the previous page, but I don't blame you if you missed it. Lots of people have been replying to you.

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

I think that would give us a good basis for a reasonable discussion. Just the one or two things that you think best show a conspiracy or a flaw in the official story.

[CurtC]

So what does that have to do with the building falling like a house of cards? No it didn't need to break or melt it...but it needed to essentially knock out all of the steel on a floor for the pancake theory to work. Are you saying that a entire floor was incinerated in a hour, to the point where the whole building could fall down? What about the reinforced unaffected lower floors?I'm having trouble figuring out what part of this picture you don't understand. Each floor is designed to safely hold desks, file cabinets, a couple hundred meatbags, etc. A floor is *not* designed to withstand a 25-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 26-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 27-story building slamming down on top of *it*.

Your complaint that the buildings *looked* like they were demolished is just saying that they looked like they FELL DOWN. It's impossible for a building like any of the WTC towers to topple over sideways like a kid's toy, because long before it would get to a severe angle, parts would be stressed to their breaking point and then gravity would pull it straight down. In fact, with the WTC2 collapse, you can see it starting to go sideways a little when it suddenly drops. WTC1 dropped starting at the middle, so it pretty much came straight down, which is consistent with its airplane strike that was more centered, so the center columns would have sustained much more damage.

You keep saying that you're not making any specific claims, but you also keep bringing up these stupid assertions that the buildings could have been demolished. And you point to a huge collections of insane ideas, such as the Wikipedia laundry list of conspiracy theories, and the Loose Change video, wanting us to address all of those. No one wants to do that because it's such a long list and most of it is obviously insane, that's why we are asking you to present a few of the ones that pose the biggest problem to the standard model.

[orphia nay]

A floor is *not* designed to withstand a 25-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 26-story building slamming down on top of it. The floor below that was *not* designed to withstand a 27-story building slamming down on top of *it*.

Your complaint that the buildings *looked* like they were demolished is just saying that they looked like they FELL DOWN. It's impossible for a building like any of the WTC towers to topple over sideways like a kid's toy, because long before it would get to a severe angle, parts would be stressed to their breaking point and then gravity would pull it straight down. In fact, with the WTC2 collapse, you can see it starting to go sideways a little when it suddenly drops. WTC1 dropped starting at the middle, so it pretty much came straight down, which is consistent with its airplane strike that was more centered, so the center columns would have sustained much more damage.


Excellently put!

The CTs seem to think that a collapsing building should topple sideways like a brick chimney (which are usually demolished anyway)! (I think we've all seen those on film.)



You keep saying that you're not making any specific claims, but you also keep bringing up these stupid assertions that the buildings could have been demolished. And you point to a huge collections of insane ideas, such as the Wikipedia laundry list of conspiracy theories, and the Loose Change video, wanting us to address all of those. No one wants to do that because it's such a long list and most of it is obviously insane, that's why we are asking you to present a few of the ones that pose the biggest problem to the standard model.

Yes, for someone who makes excuses that they are not on any particular side of the argument, he totally ignores the rational side and retains all the claims from the conspiracy side. Has 'sitting on the fence' so long cut his reasoning in half? Is it too late for him to concede on some points, or has his pride taken him too far?

[Belz...]

Yes, for someone who makes excuses that they are not on any particular side of the argument, he totally ignores the rational side and retains all the claims from the conspiracy side. Has 'sitting on the fence' so long cut his reasoning in half? Is it too late for him to concede on some points, or has his pride taken him too far?

Ditto.

[thesyntaxera]

Thesyntaxera? How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

I asked this on the previous page, but I don't blame you if you missed it. Lots of people have been replying to you.

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

I think that would give us a good basis for a reasonable discussion. Just the one or two things that you think best show a conspiracy or a flaw in the official story.

I will...in order for me to properly answer you I will need more than a few minutes to type...bear with me:)

[thesyntaxera]

Excellently put!

"Come on ladies grease your lips.."

The CTs seem to think that a collapsing building should topple sideways like a brick chimney (which are usually demolished anyway)! (I think we've all seen those on film.)

Do I? You all should take the Randi Challenge and prove how psychic you are. Or you could use a bit of rationality yourself. A building doesn't just crumble to pieces at nearly free fall speeds just because a plane hit it, burning, and allegedly weakening the steel, it would take days not an hour. The way the three buildings came down is not congruent with any known application of building science. It took government appointed scientists who based all of their work on guesses made from watching the same video's, and the exclusion of demolition as a cause in order to "prove" that the buildings came down like they said. There was no real investigation, so there was no proof to base anything on.

Yes, for someone who makes excuses that they are not on any particular side of the argument, he totally ignores the rational side and retains all the claims from the conspiracy side. Has 'sitting on the fence' so long cut his reasoning in half? Is it too late for him to concede on some points, or has his pride taken him too far?

I haven't ignored the rational side, I think your version of what is the rational side is a bit biased by your brass balls claims to be able to debunk all of this....which no one here has done yet. I bring up the conspiracy claims because you can't debunk them with fact or evidence yourself....realize this...your life will be better as a result.

You have conceded nothing, so why should I? You don't entertain any notions other than proving your rightness.

[thesyntaxera]

I never recall the term "Pull it" used in describing a controlled demolition, but would be interested in finding that professional demolitions folks use that term--if you can find said references.

In the martial law video.

A demolitions team at ground zero bringing down the last of the buildings is featured saying pull it.

Just watch;)

[thesyntaxera]

What I'm not clear on is how you see the potential for a revolution here. Anybody with the ability to plan and carry out the attacks could have easily foreseen the galvanizing effect it had on the American public. Could you explain how this could have lead to a revolution?

I took the idea from a recent history channel feature on the history of bin Laden. It was speculated that he might have been trying to inspire the muslims in Saudi Arabia to overthrow the monarchy, I suggested that one of the fallouts could have been the ousting of our executive branch by the airing of the complete past history of involvment between us and terrorist regimes as well as the economic oil related issues between the US and the Middle East.


So there was a cover up of the POTENTIAL blow bin Laden COULD HAVE struck with the attacks?

no, a cover up of what could have been revealed about the executive members of government.

[Belz...]

Syntax, man. Please include the NAME of the quoted person. You're confusing the HELL out of me.

[thesyntaxera]

Syntax, man. Please include the NAME of the quoted person. You're confusing the HELL out of me.

Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show.

[CurtC]

A building doesn't just crumble to pieces at nearly free fall speeds just because a plane hit it, burning, and allegedly weakening the steel, it would take days not an hour.I'm trying to come with an explanation that would make a 100-story building fall at slower than "nearly free fall speeds." It just doesn't make sense - once it loses structural integrity and the top part of the building gets headed down, what's there to slow it down?

And why would it take days? Weakening is a function of temperature, not time. A steel beam at 800 degrees will be just as weak the moment it hits that temp as it would be the next day at that temp.

Still waiting on that short list of problems with the standard model...

[thesyntaxera]

I'm trying to come with an explanation that would make a 100-story building fall at slower than "nearly free fall speeds." It just doesn't make sense - once it loses structural integrity and the top part of the building gets headed down, what's there to slow it down?

And why would it take days? Weakening is a function of temperature, not time. A steel beam at 800 degrees will be just as weak the moment it hits that temp as it would be the next day at that temp.

Still waiting on that short list of problems with the standard model...

Well for starters there is 80 or so stories below that aren't weak, and that only gain in strength as it gets closer to the ground. It's not that the upper floor couldn't have collapsed, it's that the lower 80 wouldn't.

Why would it take days? Because logic would suggest that it would require high heat for an extended period of time to weaken enough of the steel for the collapse to have occured in the manner described....that isn't possible in an hour...

as far as waiting...YOU are going to be waiting forever....the person who asked will be waiting until I have time.

Besides, you asked for sources to debunk, I gave them, then you copped out. Do what you claim you can do, or quit making thoughtless contributions in a vain attempt to argue a point that you are just as unqualified as me to assess.

[Year Zero]

First of all, numerous engineers including those that investigated the building itself and those familiar with its construction are quoted as saying that the expected the building to collapse. We have already posted links to these reports days ago, and you promptly ignored them. What you obviously don't get is:

1. Buildings may be strong but they are designed to support a STATIC load, not a DYNAMIC load as in a large portion of the building suddenly falling on top of it.

2. The fire did not have to weaken a large portion of the building, only the key places that started the collapse.

[CurtC]

Well for starters there is 80 or so stories below that aren't weak, and that only gain in strength as it gets closer to the ground. It's not that the upper floor couldn't have collapsed, it's that the lower 80 wouldn't.But consider for example floor 50. It has 50 stories of the upper floors, crashing down on top of it going something like 50 mph. What do you expect the 50th floor to do at that point? Hold it off for a couple of minutes before breaking? I would expect it to get crushed immediately with thousands of times its design load crashing down on top of it.
Why would it take days? Because logic would suggest that it would require high heat for an extended period of time to weaken enough of the steel for the collapse to have occured in the manner described....that isn't possible in an hour...If a steel beam is encased in flames for an hour, it's going to be as hot as it's going to get, and soaking it for a day or two is not going to make it any hotter or any weaker.
Besides, you asked for sources to debunk, I gave them, then you copped out.We didn't ask for sources to debunk (at least I didn't) - we asked for evidence and alternate explanations that we can have a discussion around. "Go look at Wikipedia" is not specific enough.

[thesyntaxera]

First of all, numerous engineers including those that investigated the building itself and those familiar with its construction are quoted as saying that the expected the building to collapse. We have already posted links to these reports days ago, and you promptly ignored them. What you obviously don't get is:

1. Buildings may be strong but they are designed to support a STATIC load, not a DYNAMIC load as in a large portion of the building suddenly falling on top of it.

2. The fire did not have to weaken a large portion of the building, only the key places that started the collapse.


This is from the Fema report...I'm sure you've read it.

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

This is fine, it openly says that the one thing that could have reached a hot enough temperature to weaken the steel couldn't have been the cause, so we are left to assume it was the drywall, concrete, aluminum, and office furniture...something that couldn't possibly do that.

As well I could write in all the points, but maybe you would like to read through this yourself:

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm

It's just a persons logical breakdown of the collapse itself, and I feel it makes some good arguments.

It's elementary logic that any significant heat would have caused a weakening of the steel. However, it's ludicrous to believe that the heat uniquely accumulated, versus ventilated, so as to disastrously diminish the strength of industrial steel - in such a short period of time.

Here is an interesting Nova chat with some CT rebuttals laced throughout in red.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html

NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

And here is the article that guy wrote with the same ct redness.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

Note that in all of the discussion of fire temperatures and steel weakening the authors never point out the difference between flame temperature and steel temperature, implying that they are the same. This ignores the very high thermal conductivity of steel. In actual tests of hydrocarbon-fueled fires in car parks with exposed steel structures, conducted by Corus Construction, the highest recorded temperature of any of the steel in any of the many tests was 360º C.

[Year Zero]

Right, read one part of the FEMA report and ignore the overall conclusions. FIRE WAS NOT THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE. Do you understand that concept yet? You are arguing against a strawman there.



Dr Asif Usmani, a structural engineer at the University of Edinburgh's School of Engineering and Electronics, told an engineering conference the twin towers that had dominated the Manhattan skyline seem to have been "unusually vulnerable" to a major fire.

"There was a vulnerability in the design of the structural system. It is not materials. It is not about fire protection. It is about the design of the structure," he told Reuters.

In a computer-based analysis of the buildings, Usmani studied the structure of the towers that collapsed after they were hit by two hijacked planes in attacks blamed on Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

"We are not analysing the event. We are saying let's look at the structure itself and see if it has anything unusual that makes it more vulnerable to fire than other structures," he explained.

Usmani said the towers' exterior and internal columns, which make up the core of the building, were joined by a very long and thin expanse of floor. Supporting the floors were lightweight trusses which, when exposed to fire, expand.

But because of the way the towers were built, the trusses did not have anywhere to expand without buckling.

"This was good for constructing a building very quickly and they were strong enough to carry all the loading that was put on them. But when there is a fire underneath the trusses and the steel gets hot...it expands quite a lot and those expansion forces can be quite high if the restrains to expansion are high," he added.

Even at low temperatures of about 200- 300 C (392-572 F) the steel can begin to expand and because the building itself is keeping them in place pressure builds up to a critical point.

"This caused a buckling of the floors which was providing not only the load carrying capacity for the furniture and the people but was also providing lateral support for the columns," Usmani explained.

"That lateral support vanished as soon they buckled and that is why the building fell in on itself."

[thesyntaxera]

Straw man eh?

1.Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

2.Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

3.Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4.Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Sounds like I shouldn't expect less from you...if you can't debate this any other way than as read above whats the point in even talking to you?

Your article says nothing really, except that this guy looked at the video evidence as well. Also, did you notice that the FEMA report appendix A contradicts it?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

[Year Zero]

It only "contradicts" when you look at ONE part of the report rather than taking the whole assessment together.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I will...in order for me to properly answer you I will need more than a few minutes to type...bear with me:)

Bearing with you as we speak, ten hours later...

Oh well, it's past my bedtime.

[thesyntaxera]

Bearing with you as we speak, ten hours later...

Oh well, it's past my bedtime.

Sorry, I must have my priorities all screwed up since I didn't do anything in what you would consider a timely manner.

Here's a start.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KAN20040819&articleId=679

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_-_us_complicity__implausi.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_smoking_gun.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fema_911.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html

Want more? Just ask.

[thesyntaxera]

Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

and...

Nevertheless, ten days later Romero had changed his mind. Not only that, but the Albuquerque Journal changed their story too. They altered the original web page about Romero's views. It now shows his revised views first.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2.htm

so if no investigation was done yet, why would he change his views in 10 days?

[delphi_ote]

so if no investigation was done yet, why would he change his views in 10 days?

I can't imagine.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Maybe you should've read the articles.

[Hutch]

Delphi, to add to that, earlier today thesyntaxhera quote a source that may bear repeating about now:


Here is an interesting Nova chat with some CT rebuttals laced throughout in red.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...va_eagar1.html


NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.


Bolding and Italics above mine.


So some engineers were surprised, but engineers who DESIGNED THAT TYPE OF BUILDING were not surprised.

Unless Mr. Romero designed these type of buildings (which based on his career choice I would say was unlikely), then he might well have been surprised--but he listened to the other opinions, came to an informed conclusion, and revised his original conclusion based on the evidence.

As indeed, I think most in this thread have done.

[thesyntaxera]

I can't imagine.

Yeah thats hard for you it seems.



Maybe you should've read the articles.


I did, I'm still curious hence the question. The official report doesn't say that the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

we just covered this.

So in 10 days this fellow looked at some video and was convinced by his peers based on the same video that what he thought was a demolition was actually speculation not supported by the eventual FEMA report...that the jet fuel weakened the steel. Why would these guys draw any conclusions before the actual investigation? The case wasn't under way untl 144 days later.

[thesyntaxera]

Delphi, to add to that, earlier today thesyntaxhera quote a source that may bear repeating about now:





Bolding and Italics above mine.


So some engineers were surprised, but engineers who DESIGNED THAT TYPE OF BUILDING were not surprised.

Unless Mr. Romero designed these type of buildings (which based on his career choice I would say was unlikely), then he might well have been surprised--but he listened to the other opinions, came to an informed conclusion, and revised his original conclusion based on the evidence.

As indeed, I think most in this thread have done.

The designer of the building claims it was made to withstand mutiple 707's which are of close size and fuel capacity.

[Belz...]

The designer of the building claims it was made to withstand mutiple 707's which are of close size and fuel capacity.

The hit, yes. The fire ?

[delphi_ote]

Why would these guys draw any conclusions before the actual investigation? The case wasn't under way untl 144 days later.

His speculation was fine until he disagreed with you. Why is that?

[Year Zero]

The designer of the building claims it was made to withstand mutiple 707's which are of close size and fuel capacity.


Wrong. First of all, that is a much smaller plane, second it was not intended to withstand a hit at top speed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sorry, I must have my priorities all screwed up since I didn't do anything in what you would consider a timely manner.


It's more that you did not do what you said you would do.


Want more? Just ask.

How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

I asked this on the page before last, then again on the previous page.

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

I think that would give us a good basis for a reasonable discussion. Just the one or two things that you think best show a conspiracy or a flaw in the official story.

[thesyntaxera]

Wrong. First of all, that is a much smaller plane, second it was not intended to withstand a hit at top speed.

Wrong? Really?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

To summarize the aircraft:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.


His speculation was fine until he disagreed with you. Why is that?

No, his speculation was fine until he decided, based on no investigation, to change his view...hence the question...he says he spoke to other collegues and they changed his mind.

Wow..what backbone and scientific rigor.

It's more that you did not do what you said you would do.

Really, I was under the impression I had been doing that the entire time...if the supplied links to various sources are not good enough for you, perhaps you should do your own research....or better yet, get to work debunking as you do.

I asked this on the page before last, then again on the previous page.

yep, you want me to narrow it down to two or one, as if there is ever a single piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt convince a person one way or the other...besides that my contention has been that the linking of catastrophic coincidental failures, political agenda's, political histories, inconsistent timelines, poor investigations, muddled cover-ups, and events that defy any previously known or anticipated outcome... such as the way and means of the collapse itself that is, regardless of view point, very much in question.

Any serious scrutiny into the available information only brings more holes that in any other investigation would be looked into fully.

If the government is not responsible they should feel some measure of duty to prove innocence to a skeptical world. If they have nothing to hide there should be a full disclosure for there is nothing that would be to sensitive to no be included in a investigation.

I haven't heard a single point made yet as to why they should feel the need to obscure information that seemed to make any sense.

Lastly, if the government is in full possession of incontrovertable evidence that proves 100% of the story as told, then why not release all the information that supports the assertions.

The reason I have stated earlier is: there is no real evidence to support it.

Your entire arguments hinges on: They are too dumb to have done anything this involved...even though there is plenty of historical precedent for political conspiracy.

[CurtC]

No, his speculation was fine until he decided, based on no investigation, to change his view...hence the question...he says he spoke to other collegues and they changed his mind.

Wow..what backbone and scientific rigor.Someone who can recognize when he has made a mistake, and correct himself. How refreshing.
yep, you want me to narrow it down to two or one, as if there is ever a single piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt convince a person one way or the other...So there is no evidence for a conspiracy that can withstand scrutiny?
If the government is not responsible they should feel some measure of duty to prove innocence to a skeptical world.You mean not responsible, as in proving that they didn't take an active role in carrying out the attacks? They don't feel a need to prove innocence because only a handful of insane people believe otherwise. It's not a significant issue for them.

[delphi_ote]

No, his speculation was fine until he decided, based on no investigation, to change his view...hence the question...he says he spoke to other collegues and they changed his mind.

But he'd done no investigation before he changed his views, either. As I previously stated, you're okay with whatever speculation agrees with your conspiracy theory and nothing more. In the disgusting tradition of the Holocaust deniers before you, you're picking the evidence that makes your case and ignoring the rest.

[Freakshow]

Wrong? Really?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html


It was designed under the assumption that the plane would have little fuel left, and be cruising at a slow speed, for approach to landing. The idea is that it would be a plane at the end of its journey, on approach, and totally lost in dense fog.

The planes that did hit the WTC did so with a lot of fuel in them, and travelling at a much higher speed than you would see in a 707 on approach to landing.

ETA: And notice that it was not the impact that brought the planes down. It was the fire afterwards. And while thinking about that fire, think of what I posted above about the design requirements (plane low on fuel) compared to what actually happened (plane nearly full of fuel).

[thesyntaxera]

But he'd done no investigation before he changed his views, either. As I previously stated, you're okay with whatever speculation agrees with your conspiracy theory and nothing more.

I never said I agree with him....so, where are you getting this? I pulled that quote because Zero stated that basically no strucural engineers thought demolition the day it happened.

In the disgusting tradition of the Holocaust deniers before you, you're picking the evidence that makes your case and ignoring the rest.

Isn't that what skepticism does too? Besides, I am not cherry picking anything...the Commision, FEMA report, and NIST investigation have all been thoroughly disputed....all I am am doing is pointing out where.

Instead of comparing me to the "disgusting tradition of holocaust deniers" in some sordid attempt at getting a rise out of me you could be reading and debasing all the information I have linked....

Or would that not be near as fun as hurling insults of the most immature variety?

[thesyntaxera]

It was designed under the assumption that the plane would have little fuel left, and be cruising at a slow speed, for approach to landing. The idea is that it would be a plane at the end of its journey, on approach, and totally lost in dense fog.

Really? So what a low speed for the plane? And what does that have to do with anything? Links to any sources?

The planes that did hit the WTC did so with a lot of fuel in them, and travelling at a much higher speed than you would see in a 707 on approach to landing

This is true...if that mattered.

ETA: And notice that it was not the impact that brought the planes down. It was the fire afterwards. And while thinking about that fire, think of what I posted above about the design requirements (plane low on fuel) compared to what actually happened (plane nearly full of fuel).

Maybe you could have read the previous posts....As stated in the FEMA and NIST reports, it wasn't the fuel fed fire that caused it to fall, it was the office furniture fire that burned for 85 minutes that was ignited by the fuel...they state most of the fuel burned on impact.

[thesyntaxera]

So there is no evidence for a conspiracy that can withstand scrutiny?

As far as I can tell you haven't disproven anything...just added to the conjecture.


You mean not responsible, as in proving that they didn't take an active role in carrying out the attacks? They don't feel a need to prove innocence because only a handful of insane people believe otherwise. It's not a significant issue for them.

Thats a shame.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.

On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org.

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060109135344541

This is what they say:

Steel frame buildings cannot collapse at virtually the speed of gravity, symmetrically, straight down into a relatively small pile of rubble due to fire or any other natural occurrence. Case closed…

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a hydro-carbon fire. Case closed again…

A paper passport cannot survive a plane crashing at 400 miles an hour into a building, survive the collapse of a 110 story tower which pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust, then be found intact on top of the rubble. Case closed again…

Four commercial airliners cannot get hijacked within minutes of each other, have their transponders shut off, make u-turns in the sky and fly for nearly two hours without being intercepted if air defense protocol is followed. Case closed again…

The multi-trillion dollar US defense/intelligence apparatus cannot receive many years of warnings of terrorist attacks, including specific mention of use of planes being flown into buildings, and attribute the success of the attacks of 9/11 entirely to failure and incompetence. Case closed again…

Arab terrorists who are supposedly plotting to commit such a grand scale operation as the 9/11 attacks don’t exist in this country without making an effort to conceal their identity, nor tell flight instructors they don’t care about learning how to take off or land, unless they feel they’re under protection. Muslim fanatics on a jihad don’t hang out in bars, go to casinos, do drugs, and get lap dances. An official investigation that ignores these facts cannot be taken seriously. Case closed again…

Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who allegedly crashed into the Pentagon--who was reported by his flight instructors to be such a terrible pilot that he couldn’t even fly a Cessna--could not have maneuvered a Boeing 757 to make a 270 degree turn during a 2.5 minute 7,000 foot descent from which it flew into the Pentagon without even touching the lawn. Case closed again…

Osama Bin Laden could not have been the person in the miraculously-found video showing a celebration after the attacks because his face simply doesn’t match many other photos of him, he was writing with the wrong hand, and because the figure in that video was wearing a gold band, which is prohibited in the Muslim faith. Case closed again…

The FDNY is not equipped or trained to “pull” Building 7 in a controlled demolition, as was reported by WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein. Nor can any building be prepared for such a well-designed demolition in the few hours before Building 7 “fell.” Case closed again…

The removal of the steel debris, which should have been treated as forensic evidence at the scene of a crime, was in itself a criminal act. This act has been inexplicably ignored by the media and 9/11 Commission and is further proof of a massive cover-up. Case closed again…

Key people within the FBI and cabinet positions are not rewarded with promotions for failure to take actions that would have prevented the attacks, as they have been since 9/11. Case closed again…

An official investigation of the attacks cannot be taken seriously when it took 14 months to authorize it, was then underfunded and obstructed, was then staffed only by government insiders who failed to ask hundreds of questions posed by victims’ families and excluded important information provided by whistleblowers, based its whole premise on proving the official story, and allowed the FAA timeline to be changed. Case closed again…

you can stop off here and read more:

http://911readingroom.org/bib/

[thesyntaxera]

Here are all of the related jones linked articles mentioned in the video's, I believe every one comes from a legitimate news source..although I haven't read every single one.

I thought maybe you would appreciate this since you can't watch more than 10 minutes of the video's themselves.

http://www.infowars.org/sept11_archive.htm

[thesyntaxera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism

this made me laugh, I thought it sounded famliar...

Pseudoskeptics unduly criticise and villify the proponents of various present-day theories. Pseudoskeptics usually focus on an opponent's mistakes, sometimes labeling proponents of a protoscientific theory as "mad scientists" in a discussion, and denying any possibility of a conspiracy theory.

The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).

The assumption of facts (such as stating that theories determine phenomena).

The obfuscation of facts.

The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.

Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and runs on majority rule.

Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.

Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".

Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.

Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

[thesyntaxera]

And just so I don't appear biased

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

is a good read too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies

as well

[thesyntaxera]

maybe this is more to your taste:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war.

Sept 10, 2001: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. “Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/01] "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Sept 11, 2001: Recovery experts extract data from 32 WTC computer drives revealing a surge in financial transactions. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]

This is just a sample...read on.