Loose Change

[delphi_ote]

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change

[Hellbound]

*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade :)

[chipmunk stew]

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.I haven't watched it. Is it that Alex Jones video? I had a guy trying to convince me to watch some Alex Jones video, but at the time I flat out refused because of some of the blatantly specious stuff he was quoting from it.

I guess I'll have to watch it now that it's all over Google video so I can tear it apart next time someone tells me I just have to see this thing.

[MWare]

I know I should watch this, if only so I can respond if somebody was to bring it up in conversation, but I do have a bit of a temper and this is an event I'm still trying to deal with. I fear if I watch it I will have a very unhealthy reaction.

[Serenity]

I couldn't continue watching it after the 2nd missile theory was hatched. A missile launched milliseconds before impact strikes me as absurdly unnecessary considering the fully fueled monstrosity that's right behind it. I'm expecting my brother to e-mail this one any day now.

[delphi_ote]

So the guys that made this were apparently students doing a film project.
Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas. Phil Jayhan (http://www.letsroll911.org/) apparently has some connection with them, too.

This is madness of epic proportions (http://www.erichufschmid.net/InvestigateTheTruthSeekers.htm).

Why would anybody want to investigate the three, wonderful young men (Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, and Jason Bermas) who created Loose Change?

The reason is that the criminal network that staged the 9/11 attack may be promoting Loose Change in order to push aside more important people and videos.

From the criminal's point of view, there is a big advantage to promoting Loose Change rather than somebody like myself. The main advantage would be to create the illusion that they are exposing corruption.

[delphi_ote]

One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp).

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

[WanderinWTF]

One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp).
Delphi_ote What are your beliefs of the 9/11 attack? Could you tell me anything that happend with the election in Florida? I didn't watch the whole video, however i do wanna point something out New York to me is the weakest defending city in the U.S. that has a lot of $$$!!!

[delphi_ote]

Delphi_ote What are your beliefs of the 9/11 attack?

I believe in Bush the President, Leader of Texas and America, and in Dick Cheney, His evil partner conceived by the 9/11 tragedy, born of the spinmeister Rove, suffered under Osama Bin Laden was elected, stupid, and incompitent. The towers mysteriously fell; the third day He rose again to make a speech He ascended into The White House and sits at the right hand of Donald Rumsfeld, the Father Almighty From thence He will judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 9/11 missile attacks The planes not found The complicity of the CIA The free fall of the towers The destruction with explosives And the conspiracy everlasting Amen.

[Serenity]

I believe in Bush the President, Leader of Texas and America, and in Dick Cheney, His evil partner conceived by the 9/11 tragedy, born of the spinmeister Rove, suffered under Osama Bin Laden was elected, stupid, and incompitent. The towers mysteriously fell; the third day He rose again to make a speech He ascended into The White House and sits at the right hand of Donald Rumsfeld, the Father Almighty From thence He will judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 9/11 missile attacks The planes not found The complicity of the CIA The free fall of the towers The destruction with explosives And the conspiracy everlasting Amen. :D

They should change the name from "Loose Change" to "Loose Marbles!"

[WanderinWTF]

:D

They should change the name from "Loose Change" to "Loose Marbles!"
Pls inform me as to who THEY are pls lol.

[Serenity]

Pls inform me as to who THEY are pls lol.Why the evil-doer’s… purveyors of all things conspiratorial. Their names are cloaked in secrecy, but can be revealed for a small fee. May I direct you to the nearest money drop?

[WanderinWTF]

OMG you believe in the Anit-Christ. He's not the person in charge of Texas or the U.S. In fact he lost the votes in Texas, they have planted that in peoples brains so when they think about it winning was possible cause Texas is so big. To win Fl. which was trickery and planned, not by genius but by power, money and destruction. He only takes orders like a puppet, a robot. when I see him on tv his eyes look so cold.

[delphi_ote]

I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?

[delphi_ote]

For anyone else who might run across this video, here's a link to a good reference on how the towers fell:
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category

ETA: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21

[Manny]

I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?Any picture or video of either of the collapsing building should suffice -- much of the outer structure was split off from the building during the collapse and did indeed fall at free-fall speeds. A picture clearly shows such pieces below the place where they fell off and a video shows them falling more quickly than the building itself.

[delphi_ote]

Any picture or video of either of the collapsing building should suffice -- much of the outer structure was split off from the building during the collapse and did indeed fall at free-fall speeds. A picture clearly shows such pieces below the place where they fell off and a video shows them falling more quickly than the building itself.

Good point. Thanks, manny.

Just a note, the point that seemed to convince my roomie the most was the "think of how many people would have to be involved to cover this up" argument. Coupled with "who would do this" and "why would anyone do this" I could tell he started to be a bit more critical of the film.

[Luke T.]

*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade :)

This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.

[delphi_ote]

This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.

But this is an order of magnitude more absurd. We all watched the (rule 8)ing building collapse on our TVs. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people's lives were directly impacted by the events. Thousands of lives were ended and two wars were fought as a result of this event. It happened right in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world, not far out in orbit. Faking this would have taken thousands of people and billions of dollars. Nobody would have the motivation to do this, either. I could see faking the moon landing maybe to psych out the USSR or something. The motivation behind this 9/11 conspiracy is so murky and absurd. To collect insurance money? To make returns on investments? To justify military action?

It's madness. That this video is starting to catch on around college campuses really makes me worry about the future of our country.

[Manny]

Just a note, the point that seemed to convince my roomie the most was the "think of how many people would have to be involved to cover this up" argument.I don't get how anyone gets past that argument. With the moon landing, a true CTer can at least say, "yeah, but all those people worked for the government or its contractors-- they were in on it, too!" Here, we're talking about hundreds or thousands of people who didn't work for the government (or if they did, not for the conspirators -- the worked for the city government, for example). And many of them died. How could one sneak explosive charges, say, past the building staff who subsequently died because they stayed in the buildings after the attacks to help people escape?

[Orb]

Not sure who said this first but it always rings true: If the president can't keep getting a BJ secret, how do you expect to cover up something as large as the twin tower conspiracy?

[delphi_ote]

I don't get how anyone gets past that argument.

They get past it because they're not thinking critically. Watch the documentary sometime. It just bombards you with anecdotes and sinister implications. They never put the pieces together enough that you could call what they're presenting a "theory." They just drop enough hints to prey on what people want to believe. Yes, I think they want to believe it. I don't understand why, but it seems like these people want to live in a bad Tom Clancy novel adaptation directed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

My room mate is a smart guy. The other guy who recommended the video to me is a Computer Science PhD student. They just weren't being critical thinkers.

[brodski]

How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.

[Ducky]

How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.



Yeah, Lewis Black said it best:

"At least have the common sense to send two fifteen year olds to Kinko's and tell them 'Look I need a picture of a camel with a nuke on its back.'"

[chipmunk stew]

How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.They're faking incompetence to make us believe that they couldn't possibly have pulled off the 9/11 hoax, and meanwhile they're profiting royally off Iraq. The longer they can stretch this thing out, the more they profit. Or at least that was the gist of a particularly loony rationale that one guy presented to me.

[brodski]

They're faking incompetence to make us believe that they couldn't possibly have pulled off the 9/11 hoax, and meanwhile they're profiting royally off Iraq. The longer they can stretch this thing out, the more they profit. Or at least that was the gist of a particularly loony rationale that one guy presented to me.
Did you ask him to stop and actualy listen to what he was saying himself?
Why would a government fake incompetence, when it comes so naturaly to all of them anyway.

[Hellbound]

Yes, I think they want to believe it. I don't understand why, but it seems like these people want to live in a bad Tom Clancy novel adaptation directed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think.

Also, I think it actually provides security of a sort. In the U.S., we've always had the "it can't happen here" attitude. Even after Oklahoma City, we didn't expect any foreign terrorists to be able to attack us here. 9/11 showed conclusively that this is false. Terrorists got into the country, lived here for some time, planned their attacks, trained fo their attacks, and carried them out without us being able to stop it.

Positing conspiracy also elemenates some of this type of fear. "Terrorists can't just get in without people knowing, the government allowed them in. They still have control." In a backwards sort of way, it's a way to cling to a sense that we aren't out of control at all.

Least, that's my ideas. Take 'em for what they're worth (unless you have small pipes on your septic system).

[Luke T.]

I don't understand the "free fall" problem.

But I do have some ideas about the "secondary explosions".

The film makes a big deal out of free fall, saying it would take 10 seconds for something to free fall that distance.

Later, they start to discuss the secondary explosions in the WTC. And they play a tape recorded on the 36th floor where you hear two explosions, 9 seconds apart.

They then talk about marble panels blown off the lobby by a raging fireball which travelled down the elevator shaft.

The film then says there was no way the fireball was able to burn since the elevator shaft was airtight and therefore had no air for the fire.

But what about the air that was already in the shaft?

As for the janitor, when he heard the first explosion, he thought it came from the basement. He said the second explosion came from directly overhead.

I would say that when he heard the first explosion, he was not in any state of awareness of something unusual going on and made a guess where the sound originated. Trying to guess at what could make such a noise, he says he thought it was a generator exploding. Since the generators were in the basement that is where he thought the sound came from.

By the time of the second explosion, he was more aware and was able to make a better estimate of the direction of the source.

[chipmunk stew]

Did you ask him to stop and actualy listen to what he was saying himself?
Why would a government fake incompetence, when it comes so naturaly to all of them anyway.Unfortunately, at the time I was so dumbfounded by the idea that I didn't have a response. I just sort of sputtered. I think he thought he'd made a really good point and had won the debate. He was a casual acquaintance, and I never had the opportunity to bring it up with him again. Not that it would have mattered. I mean if you're willing to take the conspiracy theory to that level, reason alone is not going to bring you back.

[sat556]

I've not really paid much attention to the CT on this, but I have just watched the video. The only bit that confused me was the Pentagon bit. From what they showed there really didn't seem to have been a plane there. The hole being tiny, no ground marks for entry etc. I could see however, that they were picking the facts that suited. Is there an explanation for this that is so simple I'm just being idiotic by missing it?
I watched the clip of the plane entering the second tower three times over due to the commentary saying that it just clips the building or something like that. It didn't look like that to me, looked like one hefty hit! These people must think that we aren't paying too much attention.

[Luke T.]

I've not really paid much attention to the CT on this, but I have just watched the video. The only bit that confused me was the Pentagon bit. From what they showed there really didn't seem to have been a plane there. The hole being tiny, no ground marks for entry etc. I could see however, that they were picking the facts that suited. Is there an explanation for this that is so simple I'm just being idiotic by missing it?
I watched the clip of the plane entering the second tower three times over due to the commentary saying that it just clips the building or something like that. It didn't look like that to me, looked like one hefty hit! These people must think that we aren't paying too much attention.

And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/overview.jpg

[Luke T.]

According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm), the plane that hit the Pentagon left a hole 30 yards wide.

[Luke T.]

More photos of the Pentagon:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg

There was a 16 foot hole was a hole created in an interior wall. A punch-out into the courtyard between the B and C rings.

[Luke T.]

The film also claims there was no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon, but if you look at the photo I posted above, you can see what looks like a jet engine in the red box. And it ain't the small engine part shown in the film.

[Luke T.]

In the film, the narrator says there was only a single hole, 16 feet wide, made by the plane's impact. They are very careful about what photos they show and seem to deliberately avoid showing the hole to the right of what photos they do show that looks like a hole created by an engine. And then they go on to say that the engines should have made holes!

ETA: Look at the hole below and to the left of the American flag in the photo I posted above. That is the hole they avoid showing in the film.

[delphi_ote]

Great links, Luke! Thanks a lot. The more I learn about this, the more I'll be able to nip this BS in the bud next time I encounter it. I'm sure I'm likely to encounter it again in my line of work...

By the way, if you want a detailed analysis of the Pentagon hit, check the Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)article on it.

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: False.

Doesn't get any clearer than that.

[delphi_ote]

Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think.

Also, I think it actually provides security of a sort. In the U.S., we've always had the "it can't happen here" attitude. Even after Oklahoma City, we didn't expect any foreign terrorists to be able to attack us here. 9/11 showed conclusively that this is false. Terrorists got into the country, lived here for some time, planned their attacks, trained fo their attacks, and carried them out without us being able to stop it.

Positing conspiracy also elemenates some of this type of fear. "Terrorists can't just get in without people knowing, the government allowed them in. They still have control." In a backwards sort of way, it's a way to cling to a sense that we aren't out of control at all.

Least, that's my ideas. Take 'em for what they're worth (unless you have small pipes on your septic system).

Well put, Hutch. I think that's definitely part of the appeal, but I think there are two other factors: excitement and simplicity.

Excitement: We've heard the same story over and over about the towers. There's not enough drama involved. Some of the characters are almost totally unknown. The conspiracy makes it all so much more exciting. We see Bush on T.V. every day. The characters get a face (especially the villians.)

Simplicity: International politics and different cultures are too complicated. The facts don't give us someone to directly hate. They can't get self-righteous and scream and yell. They don't have anyone to track down and take action against (remember, I'm talking about the couch sitting gossipers. They're not going to strap on an M16 and go fight anyone.) The enemy is not a vague ideology thousands or millions of people loosely identify with, but 10 guys smoking cigars in a room together. They can track down the "real" terrorists watching T.V. and surfing the internet.

You can see where control, excitment, and simplicity might all play into one another. Make it simple so you can bring the problem into a realm where you can pretend to have some control. Get excited about each bit of information you string together on your couch, because it brings the situation that much more under control. Simplifying the complex realities makes it easier to get worked up and excited about.

Hmm... the more I think about it, these three points could equally well apply to anti-evolutionists, Holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxters, anti-big-pharma alternative medicine advocates... and on and on. There's definitely a pattern here.

[JamesDillon]

Popular Mechanics ran an article in March 2005 debunking the 9/11 myths, which is available online:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[Gulliamo]

Argh! I wish I had found this thread before I asked the same questions here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53349
Thanks for the good info and links!

[Manny]

Doesn't get any clearer than that.It's also worth noting that among the passengers and crew who would have been killed or otherwise disappeared to "complete" any fictious story about AA flt 77 doing something other than crashing into the Pentagon was Barbara Olson, the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Ted argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. So in order to believe this theory one must suppose that one of the people most responsible for putting the President in office (and a long-time Republican fix-it guy in any event) either a) was left out of the loop on the conspiracy or b) desired to kill his wife, an unbelievably popular political commentator in her own right or c) Barbara Olson is alive and in perma-hiding.

[Z]

I found the video interesting, if not particularly well-researched. Most of the 'facts' they've presented I've heard before or heard reasonable explanations of.

The points I'm still curious about:

1) The apparent landing and evacuation of Flight 93 in Cleveland, as reported by WCPO here in Cincinnati the morning of 9/11. It's a curious glitch, and I've never heard anyone address it. (In fact, the general events in Cleveland that morning were most unusual - and largely unexplained)

2) The issue of cell phone usage on Flight 93. I assume that a plane on a suicide descent wouldn't be cruising at 32,000 feet, but it does seem as if a disproportionately large number of cell phones were working - and in a rather vague coverage area? Also, I do think that Mark (Bright?)'s identifying himself to his own mother by his full name to be very strange. Still - people are strange, aren't they?

3) What's the truth about the alleged Osama bin Laden confession tape? Is there anything to the handedness issue, the ring, etc? I can't seem to find much skeptical discussion on this particular issue. Granted, I still think terrorists were responsible for 9/11, but could bin Laden be just a convenient scapegoat?

Personally, I'm trying to remain skeptical on the whole issue. I don't trust any Bush as far as I could throw them, and I certainly think that any fundie Christian with money and power ought to be shot anyway; but to suggest that Bush could have orchestrated something to THIS scale is ludicrous.

On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past certain people to take advantage of the situation and use this terrorist attack as an excuse to further personal agendas.... I would... :D

...God, every time I see those planes hit the Towers I still get ill inside.

[delphi_ote]

...God, every time I see those planes hit the Towers I still get ill inside.

That's the main reason this whole subject makes me so angry. These conspiracy nuts are taking advantage of that feeling and polluting people's minds for a few cheap jollies. Some of their accusations fall on the very rescue workers who rushed into the buildings that day or the janitors lives who were snuffed out under all that rubble. I just can't sit by and let the memory of that day become tarnished. What government and media have done with that day is sin enough. Of all the things our culture needs to be sober and real about, 9/11 should be first.

This is the worst kind of credulous thinking.

[delphi_ote]

It's also worth noting that among the passengers and crew who would have been killed or otherwise disappeared to "complete" any fictious story about AA flt 77 doing something other than crashing into the Pentagon was Barbara Olson, the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Ted argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. So in order to believe this theory one must suppose that one of the people most responsible for putting the President in office (and a long-time Republican fix-it guy in any event) either a) was left out of the loop on the conspiracy or b) desired to kill his wife, an unbelievably popular political commentator in her own right or c) Barbara Olson is alive and in perma-hiding.

No way. Clearly she knew too much! Christ this crap is easy. No wonder the intellectually lazy are so attracted to it.

[delphi_ote]

Popular Mechanics ran an article in March 2005 debunking the 9/11 myths, which is available online:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

You, sir, are my hero. That was awesome!

[shecky]

It's also worth noting that among the passengers and crew who would have been killed or otherwise disappeared to "complete" any fictious story about AA flt 77 doing something other than crashing into the Pentagon was Barbara Olson, the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Ted argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. So in order to believe this theory one must suppose that one of the people most responsible for putting the President in office (and a long-time Republican fix-it guy in any event) either a) was left out of the loop on the conspiracy or b) desired to kill his wife, an unbelievably popular political commentator in her own right or c) Barbara Olson is alive and in perma-hiding.

Now you're starting to freak me out, man. :scared:

[VoloVersio]

In addition to being the product of severely confused people, it's not very engaging a documentary. I almost prefer Michael Moore.

[Moochie]

I've just watched an excellent series called Inside 9/11 on the NatGeo channel here in Australia. What happened on that infamous date still affects me deeply.

To say that the event was planned and executed by anyone but a tiny enclave of disaffected psychopaths using religion as a shield defies rationality.

2973 people lost their lives because of the actions if these psychopaths.

As Bin Laden was quoted as saying at the end of the documentaries: We love death. the Americans love life. That is the difference between us.

I believe he was wrong on both counts. He would have made a good propagandist in Nazi Germany.

There is an answer to this horrible, terrifying stand-off, but I'm afraid that we in the West would never countenance it.

So the carnage will continue indefinitely.

M.

[sat556]

Thanks for those links. I had figured we weren't being shown anything in that film that would allow an objective conclusion.
I must say however, that the video of Bin Laden doesn't look like him to me either. I thought that immediately. This doesn't mean I think it's all a conspiracy though, Saddam had doubles didn't he? If I was in that position I'd try to find several.

[Gulliamo]

There is an answer to this horrible, terrifying stand-off, but I'm afraid that we in the West would never countenance it.Care to elaborate?

[Melendwyr]

Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think. Rather like how people invented gods that controlled thunder and lightning -- gods are essentially just very powerful people, and even a capricious and cruel person is at least familiar, and therefore comfortable.

[blue_eastcoast]

thank you very much for sharing this, I spent 1 hour and 20 minutes watching this whole video, it made me feel many different ways, it made me feel angry at the american goverment for a thing such as this to happen. But is also mad me feel compelled to show this to other people, the government has to lie and cover up everything.

At least there are some smart people in the world.

[chipmunk stew]

thank you very much for sharing this, I spent 1 hour and 20 minutes watching this whole video, it made me feel many different ways, it made me feel angry at the american goverment for a thing such as this to happen. But is also mad me feel compelled to show this to other people, the government has to lie and cover up everything.

At least there are some smart people in the world.Ummm... You might want to read through this thread...

[Azrael 5]

Whilst I don't believe there is a conspiracy there are some things about the Pentagon attack that seem odd.CCTV showed no plane approaching,the few frames that get shown over and again at least.CCTV film was taken from the nearby hotel and never returned nor disclosed,the damage seems to be from the inside out,yet there's a hole in the front wall,with little damage to the grass.
The terrorists leaving neat little clues in the cars found at whichever airport it was-Denver?-including flight manuals!! The passport found a few blocks away from the Twin Towers site intact enough to identify Mohammed Atta.Lastly havent some of the named terrorists supposedly on the flight been proved to be alive?
Ok so this is from memory and not evidence,and as stated I dont believe in conspiracies.

[Z]

There are, on the surface, oddities in any situation. What I think is happening here, is the data we're receiving is obviously filtered. Not because of some conspiracy or something, but from the usual, general incompetence of the people responsible. Let's be frank - most people are mind-numbingly stupid. This includes our government. My guess is the videotapes showing the plane smashing into the Pentagon are sitting in someone's car, forgotten, or on the back of a desk under a large stack of paperwork; or erased, purely by stupid accident. The 'suspected terrorists' are all listed off of old lists of possible suspects, probably - most of them sorely out-of-date, and probably built on hearsay and speculation that is unfounded at best. The people who compiled those lists - also idiots, most likely.

The evidence that seems odd - like the hole seemingly blown from inside out - we ought to consider that we aren't experts in these fields, and haven't personally seen the damage. We've seen pictures and had other people tell us what we're seeing - usually conspiracy theorists, basically.

As for oddball things, like a terrorist's passport blowing down the street or flight manuals in cars... Sure, it's odd. But I would expect a lot of material would be left behind in the cars of these suicide bombers for some very simple reasons. First, probably brushing up at the last minute in the cars. Second, not wanting to be questioned by security (weren't most of these guys non-Citizens? A bunch of Middle-Easterners carrying flight manuals would have looked a bit suspicious). Third - it's not like they'll miss the manuals - they're planning on dying, after all.

The passport does sound unfailingly suspicious to me, though - and I wouldn't put it past our government to plant small bits of evidence to reinforce our anti-Afghanistan feelings and support all-out war. But at the same time, weirder things have happened. It's just 'one of those things'.

Without more info, it's really foolish of us to start crying 'conspiracy'.

Still, I'd like to know more about the cell phone usage on Flight 93...

[Azrael 5]

I doubt "Let's Roll" happened actually.Sounds to American gung ho for my liking.When these terrorists apparently cut the throat of a air hostess on the Twin Tower flights,I can't see a few "jocks" being much of a problem.It's not like the terrorists were expecting an easy job.
While I accept(and I too would also)they wanted to say goodbye to their families,why did no-one on the other flights make calls? Why did the terrorists allow them to make calls,alerting people to their plans?

[kookbreaker]

I doubt "Let's Roll" happened actually.Sounds to American gung ho for my liking.When these terrorists apparently cut the throat of a air hostess on the Twin Tower flights,I can't see a few "jocks" being much of a problem.It's not like the terrorists were expecting an easy job.
While I accept(and I too would also)they wanted to say goodbye to their families,why did no-one on the other flights make calls? Why did the terrorists allow them to make calls,alerting people to their plans?

People on the other flights did make calls, but to that point, no one knew that the planes were to be used as weapons.

As for the terrorists allowing them, do you think four guys with knives can control every action on the plane?

But do feel free to join the conspiracy nutters and s*** on the memory of those who had a chance to fight back.

[kookbreaker]

TThe passport does sound unfailingly suspicious to me, though - and I wouldn't put it past our government to plant small bits of evidence to reinforce our anti-Afghanistan feelings and support all-out war. But at the same time, weirder things have happened. It's just 'one of those things'.


Truth is, the passport was never a big piece of evidence. It get attention far out of porportion to its value simply because all the Ct'ers are jumping up and down and pointing at it while screaming "Not possible! Not POSSIBLE! ITS A PLANT!!!". Looking at the reports from the gov't the passport is scarcely mentioned, and the FBI seemed to think little of it as evidence of who the hijackers were.

[Soapy Sam]

It is interesting to see how wrong your intuition can be about something like this. Looking at the Pentagon pictures Luke posted, I must admit I do find it hard to believe there is an aircraft in there.
I find myself thinking- well if that's an engine in the red box, where is the wing it should be attached to? Surely there ought to be at least part of the wing visible outside the building?
I also would expect, given the density of tourists in Washington DC and the ubiquity of cameras, to see at least one video of the impact actually happening. Is it this, compared with the many videos of the WTT, that permits us to ignore the eye witness testimony of those who actually saw the aircraft?

Like many of those who have misinterpreted the NASA lunar photos, I am simply unable to assess the scale and nature of the damage. How big are those windows in the Pentagon? What width are the ground floor gaps between pillars in the (foam covered) photo? Could a plane get through there? (Or whatever is left of a plane hitting a solid building at that speed?)
The fact that this building is vastly tougher than we would expect makes the photos seem even odder. It is not the damage that surprises, but the comparative lack of it.

I note on the USA Today animation, the aircraft as it approaches the building seems much wider than the hole in the photo. It would be interesting to see an accurate superimposition of a 757 on the photo.

It's interesting. Something dreadful happens. Lots of people see it happen. Yet when one person asks if it's a government conspiracy, we all start to doubt . If only the public were as sceptical of half of the real bs out there.

[Angus McPresley]

Ten or twelve years ago I worked with a guy who was a John Birch Society member. He lent me a conspiracy theory video called Waco: The Big Lie (which you can read about here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Thompson_(attorney))). It was so slipshod and full of specious arguments that I remember feeling distinctly embarassed for my coworker. That a grown man could believe this sort of hogwash was a disturbing revelation to me.

[delphi_ote]

Ten or twelve years ago I worked with a guy who was a John Birch Society member. He lent me a conspiracy theory video called Waco: The Big Lie (which you can read about here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Thompson_(attorney))). It was so slipshod and full of specious arguments that I remember feeling distinctly embarassed for my coworker. That a grown man could believe this sort of hogwash was a disturbing revelation to me.

When I was 15, I went to a John Birch Society camp. Those people all need years of psychotherapy. And medicine. Lots of medicine.

[delphi_ote]

The CIA is clearly capable of a coverup like the one outlined in Loose Change:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060312/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_internet;_ylt=AnjMnbo2iUL3LaV_jyJYFUwjtBAF;_yl u=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

:rolleyes:

[Z]

People on the other flights did make calls, but to that point, no one knew that the planes were to be used as weapons.

As for the terrorists allowing them, do you think four guys with knives can control every action on the plane?

But do feel free to join the conspiracy nutters and s*** on the memory of those who had a chance to fight back.


It's not (in my mind) that the other flights didn't have calls (they did); it's how the heck cell phones worked. The only thing I think we're missing in this particular equation is the actual altitude of the planes during the calls.

Yes, at that point in time, most cell phones couldn't get good coverage at 32,000 ft... but these were planes descending rapidly to hit ground targets; ergo, at the time the calls were being made, chances are the planes were MUCH lower and closer to workable range for cell phones. That's my guess, anyway.

I still don't have a cell phone, so I'm pretty much clueless on how they operate... :D

[kookbreaker]

It's not (in my mind) that the other flights didn't have calls (they did); it's how the heck cell phones worked. The only thing I think we're missing in this particular equation is the actual altitude of the planes during the calls.

Yes, at that point in time, most cell phones couldn't get good coverage at 32,000 ft... but these were planes descending rapidly to hit ground targets; ergo, at the time the calls were being made, chances are the planes were MUCH lower and closer to workable range for cell phones. That's my guess, anyway.

I still don't have a cell phone, so I'm pretty much clueless on how they operate... :D

Keep in mind that the airplane phones do work, and they are often right in front of the middle seat.

Cell phones not working? I've seen arguements from both sides, the CTers point to a study saying it would not work, but I hear pilots saying that they do, and people have been arrested for using their cell phone on planes. I tend to side with the pilots on this one.

The problem is that you jump from transmitter to transmitter. Making a mess.

[Z]

Keep in mind that the airplane phones do work, and they are often right in front of the middle seat.

Cell phones not working? I've seen arguements from both sides, the CTers point to a study saying it would not work, but I hear pilots saying that they do, and people have been arrested for using their cell phone on planes. I tend to side with the pilots on this one.

The problem is that you jump from transmitter to transmitter. Making a mess.

Yeah. The recent implementation of cell phone nodes on planes is really to help stabilize the transmission, and to keep the cell phones from interfering with avionics too badly, IIRC.

[delphi_ote]

it made me feel many different ways, it made me feel angry at the american goverment for a thing such as this to happen.
So you're going to accuse the faceless "american government" of murdering thousands of people with no evidence? You are a very unethical and cowardly person.

But is also mad me feel compelled to show this to other people, the government has to lie and cover up everything.
You're angry about imaginary government lies, yet you're going to spread the lies in this video around without critically evaluating them? The links in this thread thoroughly debunk the deceit you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

At least there are some smart people in the world.
Clearly I am not speaking to one of them now. Stop imagining you're stuck in the middle of a Dan Brown novel and THINK!

[shecky]

When I was 15, I went to a John Birch Society camp. Those people all need years of psychotherapy. And medicine. Lots of medicine.

Hee. I had a Bircher as a teacher in high school back in the 80s. He used to give us some rather amusing handouts. I wish I would have saved them.

[Z]

A while ago - just about the time I first started visiting here - I was first exposed to the 'Lunar Landing hoax' theory. I was honestly taken in by it, and confused as hell about the apparent evidence that we had faked a moon landing. But after just a few days, I had encountered all the rebuttals, and learned that people are idiots.

This time, I watched the movie (in full), made a few notes, and went off to do the research. The rebuttals aren't quite as compelling as with the Lunar stuff, but they're there, and the case against a conspiracy is strong.

Unfortunately, some folks live in a world where the Masons are secretly controlling the world, alien cultures are actively trading secrets with the government, and Elvis is alive and well, sipping Mai Tai's with Hitler in Palm Springs. How those folks make it through the day, I'll never know.

[boooeee]

I don't understand how people can say that the collapse of the South Tower (the first to collapse) looks like a controlled demolition. Any demolition crew that allowed a collapse like that would get sued.

The South Tower did not collapse straight down. There are many video clips showing how the tower buckled at one side, with the top part of the tower tipping over to one side. Also, the tower buckles at the exact point of the impact of the plane. Was the pilot really that skilled as to be able to pilot the plane to the exact point where the explosives were placed?

See the video in the link for a closeup of the South Tower collapse. Seems pretty clear to me as to what happened.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=world+trade+center

[Godmode]

I'm not completely satisfied with the official version of 911, but some of the theories out there are completely nuts, I'm surprised nobody's blamed aliens yet.

[chipmunk stew]

I'm not completely satisfied with the official version of 911, but some of the theories out there are completely nuts, I'm surprised nobody's blamed aliens yet.http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/sep/m14-005.shtml
http://www.greatdreams.com/political/911-411.htm
http://www.gallerize.com/039%209-11%20AND%20THE%20ALIEN%20QUESTION.htm

...for starters...:boggled:

[Godmode]

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/sep/m14-005.shtml
http://www.greatdreams.com/political/911-411.htm
http://www.gallerize.com/039%209-11%20AND%20THE%20ALIEN%20QUESTION.htm

...for starters...:boggled:

Oh my.
I stand corrected.
Once again I have over-estimated the human race.

[Curnir]

Oh my.
I stand corrected.
Once again I have over-estimated the human race.

Yupp it's when I read stuff like that, that I'm sorely tempted to put 'Operation: Remove all warning lables' into play.

[kookbreaker]

Yupp it's when I read stuff like that, that I'm sorely tempted to put 'Operation: Remove all warning lables' into play.

Start an Urban Legend on the net about how Masons control the world because they drink bleach.

[orphia nay]

If anyone is up for a debate with a CTer about the 'Loose Change' video, please visit and join the forum at:

http://www.in-the-gap.com/morgana/index.php

I've got sucked into a discussion, but to be honest, I don't give a damn whether I correct this guy's (he's called 'CyberChrist' ffs!) misconceptions or not. I've tried it with other nutters, and they will use any tactic bar logic to defend their stance. Still, it's fun to wind them up.

The actual thread (http://www.in-the-gap.com/morgana/viewtopic.php?t=4561) is in the Political forum.

[hurdygurdy]

Unfortunately these CT documentaries are starting to getting well spread at P2P forums. I'm about to have a discussion at an spanish forum with a guy about 'Loose Change 2nd Edition'. Has anyone watched that 2nd edition? Is it much different than 'Loose Change'? any info would be appreciated.

[Alek]

I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?

Try this link:

janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

[Alek]

I haven't watched it. Is it that Alex Jones video? I had a guy trying to convince me to watch some Alex Jones video, but at the time I flat out refused because of some of the blatantly specious stuff he was quoting from it.

I guess I'll have to watch it now that it's all over Google video so I can tear it apart next time someone tells me I just have to see this thing.

Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.

[Jon.]

Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.

In what specifics do you say the official theory does not add up?

[Alek]

*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade :)

There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2.

I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true.

[JPK]

Good afternoon Alek and welcome.
Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.

Interesting viewpoint. Exactly what leads you to your conclusions?

JPK

[JPK]

Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?
I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true. Oh I see, personal experience.
JPK

[Alek]

I know I should watch this, if only so I can respond if somebody was to bring it up in conversation, but I do have a bit of a temper and this is an event I'm still trying to deal with. I fear if I watch it I will have a very unhealthy reaction.

Everyone with a conscience was and is angry over what transpired on 9/11. It represented a major paradigm shift in this country, and the world. It has created the pretext for an Orwellian police state here in the US, and an unprecedented US policy of pre-emptive war.

That's why it's crucial that we know the truth about exactly what happend. 9/11 research which contradicts the official conspiracy theory cannot rightfully be construed as disrespectful, because the fate of the nation and perhaps the world hangs in the balance.

[Luke T.]

Okay. One word to debunk all the 9/11 conspiracy theories:


Moussaoui

[Alek]

I don't understand the "free fall" problem.

But I do have some ideas about the "secondary explosions".

The film makes a big deal out of free fall, saying it would take 10 seconds for something to free fall that distance.



It's a big deal because if we are to accept the pancake theory as offered by the 9/11 commission, we must believe that there would be virtually no resistance offered by either the floors below, or the 47 load bearing steel columns. This contradicts the laws of physics. In essence, the building should have fallen in a much slower and less symmetrical manner than it did.


Later, they start to discuss the secondary explosions in the WTC. And they play a tape recorded on the 36th floor where you hear two explosions, 9 seconds apart.

They then talk about marble panels blown off the lobby by a raging fireball which travelled down the elevator shaft.

The film then says there was no way the fireball was able to burn since the elevator shaft was airtight and therefore had no air for the fire.

But what about the air that was already in the shaft?



The marble panels along with the other lobby evidence and the eyewitness testimony of the firemen who were present are strong evidence of pre-planted explosives. It is infeasible that a raging fireball would travel 80 stories down to inflict the damage seen in the lobby, whether or not the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed.



As for the janitor, when he heard the first explosion, he thought it came from the basement. He said the second explosion came from directly overhead.

I would say that when he heard the first explosion, he was not in any state of awareness of something unusual going on and made a guess where the sound originated. Trying to guess at what could make such a noise, he says he thought it was a generator exploding. Since the generators were in the basement that is where he thought the sound came from.

By the time of the second explosion, he was more aware and was able to make a better estimate of the direction of the source.

That would be pure speculation on your part. Rodriguez's testimony was lucid, and he expressed no confusion about the origin of what he heard.

[delphi_ote]

Try this link:

janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Try this link:

janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Umm... that site supports the BS. And it a horribe analysis. The planes hit the buildings at the 77th and 93rd floor, so both towers would have started to collapse at or below those floors. The towers both collapsed in just under 10 seconds. The building was 417 meters tall. Free fall under gravity takes:
t=(2h/g)^(1/2)

They assume the building fell from the very top when they derive their 9.22 figure. If you calculate from the point where the plane hit the building (i.e. where the collapse actually started) WTC2 would have taken 7.7 seconds to collapse and WTC1 would have taken 8.5 seconds.

Their understanding of momentum is also way off.
If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next 10-floor block, Block-A will stop moving, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving. If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses.
All of the momentum would not have been transferred in the collapsing towers scenario, and gravity would have continued to act on both bodies. Think about their example for a couple seconds. If you fall on top of your friend, do you stop at any point in mid-air while your friend falls to the ground? No. You both collapse in a heap.

Welcome to the forum. I hope you posted this link by accident. These people clearly did not pass college physics.

[JPK]

It's a big deal because if we are to accept the pancake theory as offered by the 9/11 commission, we must believe that there would be virtually no resistance offered by either the floors below, or the 47 load bearing steel columns. This contradicts the laws of physics. In essence, the building should have fallen in a much slower and less symmetrical manner than it did.

Would you be kind enough to show your math here? I'm having a problem understanding which physical laws have been violated here?
JPK

[delphi_ote]

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.

Did you treat these conspiracy theory videos with any skepticism? Obviously not. Almost none of their claims hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

[delphi_ote]

It's a big deal because if we are to accept the pancake theory as offered by the 9/11 commission, we must believe that there would be virtually no resistance offered by either the floors below, or the 47 load bearing steel columns.

Come again? You'd have me believe that ANY kind of steel would slow several 10's of thousands of tons of building (i.e. the top 20-40 floors) traveling at even 5m/s (i.e after the first half second of falling?) Are you familiar by any chance with the equation for momentum?

(in case you've forgotten, it's p=m*v. In this case, 136,077,711 m kg /s. What were you saying again about slowing that down? Maybe you should take some physics courses and get back to us before we continue this discussion.)

ETA While I'm at it, the kenetic energy of the falling floors would be roughly 340 M joules, or roughly the amount of energy released from one ton of TNT.

[WildCat]

I spent last week arguing this nonsense on another board. The True Believers will never be convinced. They will hold up the word of physicists as the gospel truth over structural engineers. It's really, really astounding. Oh, I was called a Nazi supporter for not believing the conspiracy, which includes the 9/11 Commission, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry BTW. Really, truly, unbelievably nuts. And it's very disturbing to find so many people so bereft of the ability to think critically about this issue, if you've ever needed proof of the failure of public education in this country, here it is. :(

[WildCat]

BTW, the Popular Mechanics story (already linked to) on this is very good, but this site (http://www.911myths.com/index.html) is one I found even better as it is far more complete in debunking many of the nonsense theories that came about after the Popular Mechanics story was printed. It's a treasure trove of info!

[delphi_ote]

I spent last week arguing this nonsense on another board. The True Believers will never be convinced. They will hold up the word of physicists as the gospel truth over structural engineers. It's really, really astounding. Oh, I was called a Nazi supporter for not believing the conspiracy, which includes the 9/11 Commission, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry BTW. Really, truly, unbelievably nuts. And it's very disturbing to find so many people so bereft of the ability to think critically about this issue, if you've ever needed proof of the failure of public education in this country, here it is. :(

First off, thanks for arguing. The die hard believers may not be convinced, but I know I've changed at least one person's mind.

I couldn't agree with you more on the failure of our public education system. Maybe showing my work will help some people along with their physics.

[chipmunk stew]

Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity?It's true that I prejudged this video before watching it. But I didn't prejudge my assessment of the story behind 9/11 before looking into it and arguing about it. My bias against this video is based on the high likelihood that it repackages assertions and insinuations that I've already heard many times.

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.I have no doubt that there are gaps and errors in the 9/11 Commission's official version of events. I have deep doubts about how large these gaps and errors are, and about many of the assertions and implications produced by all these 9/11 Truth groups and websites and amateur documentary producers.

[Alek]

One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false.

Looks like we can add snopes.com to the short list including the 9/11 commission for which we can suspend our "skepticism".

First of all, I personally recall watching this news being reported on CNBC, and then waiting for a follow-up which never occurred. It's as if the story just completely vanished. One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of lies, so snopes.com quoting from their "report" doesn't exactly constitute a debunking of the original claim. Specifically, I'd like to know more details about the invididuals involved and their identities. I'd like details of the trades themselves including dates and times cross-referenced with other trades they may have made within the period. The original reports indicated that these anomalous trades weren't cashed out. Why would these supposedly innocent investors not realize their good fortune? I would also be curious to see a statistical analysis regarding the frequency of such trades at such high multiples of their average daily volume. As an interesting aside, the trades were made through broker Alex Brown, a subsidary of Deutsche Bank, formerly chaired by Buzzy Krongard. You may have heard of Krongard, he was until fairly recently the third ranking CIA executive who thinks we should let boogeyman Osama Bin Laden stay free:

www-timesonline-co-uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html

Second, I think this issue is a red herring, from my point of view. Arab Terrorists complicit in the official 9/11 conspiracy are just as capable of making option trades and profiting by their prescience as any would-be US government conspirator.

I apologize for the broken links, the editor restricts new users from sharing URLs (apparently I can't even quote them).

[Alek]

I don't get how anyone gets past that argument. With the moon landing, a true CTer can at least say, "yeah, but all those people worked for the government or its contractors-- they were in on it, too!" Here, we're talking about hundreds or thousands of people who didn't work for the government (or if they did, not for the conspirators -- the worked for the city government, for example). And many of them died. How could one sneak explosive charges, say, past the building staff who subsequently died because they stayed in the buildings after the attacks to help people escape?

The argument is irrelevant in the context of the evidence. Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around. The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition. Speculation on whether or not X number of people can keep a secret, whether or not they were compartmentalized, or whether they would even be believed should they attempt to blow the whistle isn't warranted.

[Alek]

And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack.

No, that certainly does not look like a 16 foot hole at all, I agree. It looks like a completely different photo, one taken after the roof of the pentagon collapsed by most accounts about a half-hour after the impact.

[delphi_ote]

Alek.

Are you just trying to keep this ball of BS rolling, or are you actually going to respond to my previous posts? Your physics is absolutely wrong. Be a man and admit it.

[chipmunk stew]

Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around. The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition.This evidence you speak of is highly questionable, to say the least. Not to mention the contra-evidence that suggests otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the face of such dubious assertions, it's appropriate to apply Occam's Razor and conclude that the more obvious explanation--the damage caused by the planes' impact--was responsible for the collapses.

[WildCat]

The argument is irrelevant in the context of the evidence. Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around. The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition. Speculation on whether or not X number of people can keep a secret, whether or not they were compartmentalized, or whether they would even be believed should they attempt to blow the whistle isn't warranted.
Your conspiracy theory has a very big problem, and until you address it there's no point in even getting to the other stuff. There have been many articles written in engineering journals (by engineers who are not working for the US gov't, and in fact many are foreigners) more than adequately explaining how the WTC towers failed and collapsed. None required anything more than the planes hitting them and the fires they caused. Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

Do you see the problem here?

[delphi_ote]

One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of lies...
I guess if you're going to accuse people of thousands of murders with no evidence, calling people liars with no evidence isn't really a big deal.


Why would these supposedly innocent investors not realize their good fortune?
Better question: why would someone who knew it was all going to happen not cash out their investment immediately, especially knowing the markets would be closed soon for several days? Or would that be too obvious? If that's too obvious, why wouldn't this whole scam be too obvious?

[delphi_ote]

Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around.
Yet clearly that is what you're doing with this conspiracy theory. You're not skeptical at all. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

"Free-fall" Get real. :rolleyes:

[delphi_ote]

Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

And their elementary physics can be debunked by a Computer Science graduate student with just one year of calculus-based college physics.

[chipmunk stew]

First of all, I personally recall watching this news being reported on CNBC, and then waiting for a follow-up which never occurred. It's as if the story just completely vanished.Perhaps because the story was a dead-end? Thousands of skilled investigative reporters out there, and none has found anything more than a suspicious coincidence. Hmmm...

[delphi_ote]

I might as well drop this in another post, since I was doing the calculations.

The kenetic energy of the top 20-40 floors falling at 5m/s (I approximated their weight at 30k tons) is rougly equal to the energy released by blowing up a ton of TNT (give or take.)

[Alek]

Umm... that site supports the BS. And it a horribe analysis. The planes hit the buildings at the 77th and 93rd floor, so both towers would have started to collapse at or below those floors. The towers both collapsed in just under 10 seconds. The building was 417 meters tall. Free fall under gravity takes:
t=(2h/g)^(1/2)



My mistake. I thought you wanted a site that debunks the myth that a modern steel structure could turn to jelly and collapse symmetrically at a free fall rate due to kerosene fires. Sorry, can't help you there.



They assume the building fell from the very top when they derive their 9.22 figure. If you calculate from the point where the plane hit the building (i.e. where the collapse actually started) WTC2 would have taken 7.7 seconds to collapse and WTC1 would have taken 8.5 seconds.

Their understanding of momentum is also way off.

All of the momentum would not have been transferred in the collapsing towers scenario, and gravity would have continued to act on both bodies. Think about their example for a couple seconds. If you fall on top of your friend, do you stop at any point in mid-air while your friend falls to the ground? No. You both collapse in a heap.



I haven't fallen on any of my friends from height, but I understand the analogy. I'm no physicist, but it seems you have misrepresented Mrs. Wood (the owner of that research). She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".



Welcome to the forum. I hope you posted this link by accident. These people clearly did not pass college physics.

Thanks. I didn't post the link by accident. I posted it in sarcastic response to your slanted and biased request for a link to convince your roommate of what you were apparently unable to convince him of yourself. It's somewhat miraculous how you've gone from initiate to adept-physicist on the free fall subject in the span of one thread. I'm not convinced either.

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.

[Jon.]

My mistake. I thought you wanted a site that debunks the myth that a modern steel structure could turn to jelly and collapse symmetrically at a free fall rate due to kerosene fires. Sorry, can't help you there.

What makes you think the steel would have to turn to jelly?

I haven't fallen on any of my friends from height, but I understand the analogy. I'm no physicist, but it seems you have misrepresented Mrs. Wood (the owner of that research). She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".

If it's moving down, and it stops moving, then it would seem to me that gravity has somehow ceased to act upon it.

Thanks. I didn't post the link by accident. I posted it in sarcastic response to your slanted and biased request for a link to convince your roommate of what you were apparently unable to convince him of yourself. It's somewhat miraculous how you've gone from initiate to adept-physicist on the free fall subject in the span of one thread. I'm not convinced either.

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.

Perhaps if you want her help in bolstering the arguments that you are trying to present here, you could invite her to come here.

[Alek]

Did you treat these conspiracy theory videos with any skepticism? Obviously not. Almost none of their claims hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

There is certainly a lot of disinformation regarding 9/11 out there, this much is certain. That it will be negatively associated with much more compelling evidence, and serve to discredit the truth movement in general is even more certain. I like to think of myself as skeptical across the board, I'm interested in the truth, and I've gotten past the emotional barrier which doesn't want to accept the most disturbing truths.

It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. You have a vested interest in the status quo. Most people do. It's easier that way, the path of least resistance. It's easier to go along with the monolithic media and assume that Bin Laden was responsible even when there is a mountain of evidence which suggests otherwise.

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Unknown

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic. I suffer from almost the same problem, but in reverse.

I find it difficult to believe virtually anything the government or media say anymore.

[Alek]

In what specifics do you say the official theory does not add up?

A lot of things don't add up. What stands out prominently in my mind, is the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. To save myself keystrokes, just visit wtc7.net and watch the video and view the evidence.

[WildCat]

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.
Let's see who these folks are...







Kevin Barrett (FM)Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Not a structural engineer.
Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)
Attorney at Law




Not a structural engineer.

Tracy Blevins (FM)
Bioengineering, Rice University




Not a structural engineer.
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions




Not a structural engineer.





Clare Brandabur (FM)Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Not a structural engineer.

Michiel Brumsen (FM)
Philosophy, Engineering ethics



Not a structural engineer.
Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years




Not a structural engineer.





Harriet Cianci (FM)Tunxis Community College, CT
Not a structural engineer.





William A. Cook (FM)Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy"
Not a structural engineer.





Richard Curtis (FM)Philosophy, Seattle University
Not a structural engineer.





Lloyd DeMause (FM)Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
Not a structural engineer.





Alexander L. Dent (FM)Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine
Not a structural engineer.





A. K. Dewdney (FM)Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario
Not a structural engineer.





Albert Dragstedt (FM)Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA
Not a structural engineer.





Ted Elden (FM)Architect, Communicator
Not a structural engineer.





Jeffrey Farrer (FM)Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
Not a structural engineer.





James H. Fetzer (FM)Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T
Not a structural engineer.





Marcus Ford (FM)Humanities, NAU
Not a structural engineer.





Ruth Frankenberg (FM)American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books
Not a structural engineer.

etc etc etc
Not a structural engineer in the bunch! I wonder why that is?

You know, I've been in the construction (remodeling/rehabs) industry for over 20 years, and never once did the Building Dept. tell me to have a Physicist, Philosopher, Psychologist, Professor of Literature, Professor of Humanities, Mathematician, Biologist, Air Force pilot, Historian, or Ethicist sign off on an architectural drawing or building plan in order to draw a permit... they seem to be partial to structural engineers for some reason.

I bet a historian would do it cheaper though, if only they could!

[Jon.]

There is certainly a lot of disinformation regarding 9/11 out there, this much is certain. That it will be negatively associated with much more compelling evidence, and serve to discredit the truth movement in general is even more certain. I like to think of myself as skeptical across the board, I'm interested in the truth, and I've gotten past the emotional barrier which doesn't want to accept the most disturbing truths.

It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. You have a vested interest in the status quo. Most people do. It's easier that way, the path of least resistance. It's easier to go along with the monolithic media and assume that Bin Laden was responsible even when there is a mountain of evidence which suggests otherwise.

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Unknown

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic. I suffer from almost the same problem, but in reverse.

I find it difficult to believe virtually anything the government or media say anymore.

(emphasis added)

What "mountain of evidence"? Everything you refer to has been effectively debunked.

You know, you sound just like the fundies with their anti-evolution rants. Make the following substitutions:

Evolution = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Scientists = government
Creationism/ID = 9/11 conspiracy theory

There you have it. The tactics are the same. It's called spaghetti-chucking. Throw a bunch of "facts" out there and as soon as people start to show that they are not true, start waving your hands about the "mountain of evidence" and accuse the fact-checkers of being brainwashed.

Yawn. Old hat.

[delphi_ote]

She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".
In mid-air? You really believe that?

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.
Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285).
Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

[chipmunk stew]

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic.Gag! Only your tenth post, and you've dropped the argument and resorted to ad hominem.

[kookbreaker]

There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2.

I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true.

Stinnett's tactis in producing 'evidence' were deliberately deceptive. Many historians and code breaker phreaks rightly called him on his deliberate ommissions and deciets. It got so bad for Stinnett he had to close the message board he had set up when the questions got too hot.

Stinnett's basic tactic was to flood his book with footnotes to make it seem like there was genuine hard research involved. In fact, those who looked at the notes would find Stinnett was being deceptive. Several times declaring that the US should have been aware of the attack based on messages that were not finally translated until 1945-46, as well as making up stuff that simply didn't happen. It was easy to check, Stinnett just hoped nobody would.

[delphi_ote]

Evolution = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Scientists = government
Creationism/ID = 9/11 conspiracy theory

Alternately:

Holocaust = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Jews = government
Holocaust denial = 9/11 conspiracy theory

[chipmunk stew]

In mid-air? You really believe that?


Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285).Is it this Judy Wood (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/)? Specializes in the mechanical properties of human teeth?

[WildCat]

Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285).
My favorite:
Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.
:eek:

[Alek]

Come again? You'd have me believe that ANY kind of steel would slow several 10's of thousands of tons of building (i.e. the top 20-40 floors) traveling at even 5m/s (i.e after the first half second of falling?) Are you familiar by any chance with the equation for momentum?

(in case you've forgotten, it's p=m*v. In this case, 136,077,711 m kg /s. What were you saying again about slowing that down? Maybe you should take some physics courses and get back to us before we continue this discussion.)

ETA While I'm at it, the kenetic energy of the falling floors would be roughly 340 M joules, or roughly the amount of energy released from one ton of TNT.

Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend? Am I to believe that the 47 core steel columns all failed simultaneously enabling a symmetrical collapse at virtual free fall speed? Perhaps you could answer this question posed by someone on another forum, I think it's a reasonable question:

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?

www-physics-byu-edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm not disputing the law of momentum. I'm disputing your implicit assumption that the conditions existed in order to send several tens of thousands of tons of steel moving at 5 meters/sec in one instant, as if a magic carpet had been pulled out from beneath it.

I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.

Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[delphi_ote]

Is it this Judy Wood (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/)? Specializes in the mechanical properties of human teeth?

One and the same. I'm sending an e-mail to the president of Clemson right now.

Dr. Barker,

I am a concerned graduate computer science student at the University of Central Florida writing to make sure you were aware of the behavior of Professor Judy Wood.

According to the organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://scholarsfor911truth.org/) Professor Wood writes the articles located at this site: janedoe0911.tripod.com

Many of the claims on this website are patently false, particularly some of the elementary physics presented. Dr. Wood seems reluctant to publish her name and profession directly on the website, but openly uses them to promote the website (as you can see clearly in this press release from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_prweb/prweb352979_1 and on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.)

It seems unethical that she would use her PhD and Professor of Mechanical Engineering status to promote her writings, but not open said writings to proper peer review by hiding her name entirely on the actual documents. It also seems dishonest that she would claim to be a full professor when she is currently an assistant professor.

Thank you for your time,
Ryan Cunningham

[WildCat]

Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend?
All it takes is one floor falling on the one below it to start the chain reaction. According to every single structural engineer who has studied it, this is what happened.

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "
Yes, according to every single report by structural engineers that have studied it.

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?
Yes, he's not a structural engineer and his opinion on the failure of a building is so far out of his discipline as to make his thoughts on the matter as relevant as the homeless guy's living under the I-94 overpass. He has some interesting theories too...

I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower.
Your statement is simply not true. WTC 7 was extensively damaged, every floor was on fire, and it had a 20-story hole ripped in it by falling debris.

Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.
Were there? I don't suppose you can confirm this...

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
That berg isn't made out of ice, it's just a big pile of (rule 8).

[Alek]

Your conspiracy theory has a very big problem, and until you address it there's no point in even getting to the other stuff. There have been many articles written in engineering journals (by engineers who are not working for the US gov't, and in fact many are foreigners) more than adequately explaining how the WTC towers failed and collapsed. None required anything more than the planes hitting them and the fires they caused. Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

Do you see the problem here?

Are you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit? Because if you want to get into cui bono, then why don't you calculate the profits of the panopticon security state that's being created here, for the "homeland". Why don't you calculate the profits of war, and oil?

Do you think it's objective to state that "Every single person" making claims counter to the 9/11 commission is not a structural engineer? Are you in fact aware of the credentials of every single person who has made such claims, and have you in fact read every engineering journal? Are you supposed to pass for a skeptic? I suppose all swans are white.

I do see the problem. When one is incapable of attacking the message, one attacks the messenger. We live in a highly specialized world, one which dictates that we delegate an inordinate amount of trust in so-called "experts", experts which have all too often proven unworthy of that trust.

[Alek]

That was a rather tedious use of the fallacy of reverse appeal to authority. Unfortunately, fallacies don't invalidate evidence. Why don't you stick to the evidence?

[delphi_ote]

Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend?

It's not 1/3, but yes. You can watch it happen. The upper floors do not disintigrate until they've toppled several hundred feet. Massive structural failures happened in the floors where the planes struck the buildings. The upper floors dropped their nearly full weight onto each floor beneath them. The whole mass accumulated and brought floor after floor down as they crashed to the ground.

I'm not disputing the law of momentum. I'm disputing your implicit assumption that the conditions existed in order to send several tens of thousands of tons of steel moving at 5 meters/sec in one instant, as if a magic carpet had been pulled out from beneath it.
Actually, it only takes the mass falling from a height less than half a meter. Several floors were taken out by the jet. I think that's a fair estimate, but even if you make that height much smaller, the upper stories are still hitting the first floor beneath them with the energy of several hundred pounds of TNT.
(doesn't this sound a lot like the old creationist "that's just microevolution. Show me macro-evolution" argument?)

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?
I am not your monkey.

[WildCat]

That was a rather tedious use of the fallacy of reverse appeal to authority. Unfortunately, fallacies don't invalidate evidence. Why don't you stick to the evidence?
It's not a fallacy if the authority is, indeed, an expert on the subject. Structural engineers are the appropriate experts on why buildings collapse. Now, a good example of the "appeal to authority fallacy" is the "scholars for truth" site you posted. Pure hogwash.

And your evidence has been shown to be false.

[Alek]

I guess if you're going to accuse people of thousands of murders with no evidence, calling people liars with no evidence isn't really a big deal.



It's pretty disingenuous to claim I have no evidence, when 1) this is my first series of posts on this forum, and 2) I've provided plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it, or consider it in an objective manner.



Better question: why would someone who knew it was all going to happen not cash out their investment immediately, especially knowing the markets would be closed soon for several days? Or would that be too obvious? If that's too obvious, why wouldn't this whole scam be too obvious?

What did you think I meant by "realizing their good fortune"? And how would they know the status of the markets after 9/11? For a skeptic, you seem to try and portray a lot of your assumptions as implicit facts. This is dishonest.

[WildCat]

Are you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit?
Yes, mostly. the rest are just idiots who let their politics trump their critical thinking skills.

Because if you want to get into cui bono, then why don't you calculate the profits of the panopticon security state that's being created here, for the "homeland". Why don't you calculate the profits of war, and oil?
OK, I get $1.98.

Do you think it's objective to state that "Every single person" making claims counter to the 9/11 commission is not a structural engineer? Are you in fact aware of the credentials of every single person who has made such claims, and have you in fact read every engineering journal? Are you supposed to pass for a skeptic? I suppose all swans are white.
I haven't seen one yet, have you? Structural enginers have their professional integrity to protect, unlike, say, a tenured Philosophy professor.

I do see the problem. When one is incapable of attacking the message, one attacks the messenger. We live in a highly specialized world, one which dictates that we delegate an inordinate amount of trust in so-called "experts", experts which have all too often proven unworthy of that trust.
I have attacked the messenger and the message w/ equal fervor. My next post will demonstrate how full of bull excrement your "WTC & was hardly scratched" claim.

[kookbreaker]

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?

www-physics-byu-edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Dr. Jones is a physics professor, not a structural engineer, nor a demolitions expert. His work is little more than a rehash of the old conspiracy theories with a few words tacked on. He misuses physics (2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain why a chunk started to fall?) and as a physics major I can rightly say that he is out of his field. Especially given that his field for the past few decades has been in High Energy physics and Cold Fusion.

Conversely, Structural Engineers in China have written papers that essentially agree with the basic model. To date, no Structural Engineer I have heard of has said the model is signifigantly wrong.

If you want some more detail, you might wish to read the bautforum thread here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793&



I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.


Large chunks of debris fell on WTC7 and what you call 'minor fires' were nothing of the sort. They raged very intensely for over 7 hours. The building visibly fell fast, but it was showing signs of failure 30 seconds before the video most conspiracy sites show starts.


Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.


To date, not one white of evidence has been produced that there were any pools of molten steel anywhere in the basement. This is a myth of the CT crowd. The primary source has admitted that he did not see it himself, first hand, and there is no video or photo evidence of these pools. So there is no need to explain something that did not happen.


This is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, that's pretty much it.

[Alek]

Yet clearly that is what you're doing with this conspiracy theory. You're not skeptical at all. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

"Free-fall" Get real. :rolleyes:

Yet clearly, that is what you're doing with the official government conspiracy. You're not skeptical at all. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Are you going to resort to this kind of banter, or shall we stick to the facts, and the evidence?

The free fall is *what happend*. Time the collapse on video. You're the one rationalizing the free fall collapse.

Why don't we stick to the facts instead of making fishing analogies.

[WildCat]

I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.
It was heavily damaged: (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html)
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
So your "scholars" don't know what the hell they're talking about, see?

[delphi_ote]

It's pretty disingenuous to claim I have no evidence, when 1) this is my first series of posts on this forum, and 2) I've provided plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it, or consider it in an objective manner.
You have not presented any evidence that the 9/11 Commission lied about anything.

What did you think I meant by "realizing their good fortune"? And how would they know the status of the markets after 9/11? For a skeptic, you seem to try and portray a lot of your assumptions as implicit facts. This is dishonest.
If they know who's going to hijack which planes when and what effect that is going to have on the economy and that the building is wired for explosives etc. etc. etc. Why are they not smart enough to predict that the market would close for a few days after the attack?

[WildCat]

The free fall is *what happend*. Time the collapse on video. You're the one rationalizing the free fall collapse.
If you actually watched the video you'd see debris falling faster than the building collapses. So you're either lying about the collapse being at free-fall speeds or haven't seen the video.

[delphi_ote]

The free fall is *what happend*.
Then show me your math, tough guy. I showed mine.

Time the collapse on video.
Just under 10 seconds. Even Dr. Wood's site uses that number.

[WildCat]

Then show me your math, tough guy. I showed mine.
You really want to see math, check out this report! (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)
Which concludes:

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
 An analysis of the energetics of the WTC collapse events has shown that the kinetic
energy of the aircraft collisions and the subsequent gravitational energy released by the
descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner
observed. The use of explosive devices in either of the two towers is not necessary to
explain the collapse events and is considered to be highly unlikely.
 The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with
the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer
model used in the calculations.
 The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If
shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional
source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear
to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.
 The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor
concrete in both towers to particles 100 m in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent
with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.
 From a consideration of the strength of the WTC columns, and the effective area of
support they provided, it is demonstrated that the conditions necessary for the initial floor
collapse were initiated by the aircraft impacts and made irrevocable by the subsequent
eccentric loading of the core columns. The fires that were initiated by the jet fuel spilled
within the towers certainly weakened steel in localized areas in the impact zones.
However, it is suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred even
without the jet fuel fires.
F.R. Greening
greening@sympatico.ca
Original version, (1.05): March 1, 2005
This version, (2.06): February 16, 2006

Just under 10 seconds. Even Dr. Wood's site uses that number.
The addendum to the above report uses seismic data to calculate the time of the collapses as:
WTC 1 - 13.48 sec.
WTC 2 - 12.07 sec.

[Alek]

Actually, it only takes the mass falling from a height less than half a meter. Several floors were taken out by the jet. I think that's a fair estimate, but even if you make that height much smaller, the upper stories are still hitting the first floor beneath them with the energy of several hundred pounds of TNT.
(doesn't this sound a lot like the old creationist "that's just microevolution. Show me macro-evolution" argument?)



Several floors were taken out by the jet? What brought the towers down, the jets, or the kerosene? It certainly wasn't the jets, otherwise an assymetrical collapse would have begun immediately.

Was it the kerosene? Air-aspirated hydrocarbon fires don't reach temperatures hot enough to turn steel into the structural equivalent of wet noodles. They require blast-furnaces with pressurized, pre-treated air. According to most accounts, most of the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, and the remaining fuel was office furniture and similar materials. Cellulosic fires require the most optimal of conditions to even remotely affect steel, and eyewitness accounts of firefighters indicate the fires were under control. If I'm wrong, and this isn't the case, then certainly controlled demolition got a whole lot more cheap and convenient after 9/11. Why bother with extensive planning and thermite, when a simple jet fuel fire will suffice?



I am not your monkey.

I didn't suggest you were. But since you went from inquiring about websites which debunk the myth that the towers couldn't collapse in a free fall to an authoritative physics expert who thoroughly debunked my claim in the span of a few posts, I figured you had the credentials to debunk Jones. Since I'm interested in the truth, I'd be more than happy to see you do it.

[WildCat]

Several floors were taken out by the jet? What brought the towers down, the jets, or the kerosene? It certainly wasn't the jets, otherwise an assymetrical collapse would have begun immediately.
Read the report I linked to in my previous post.

[kookbreaker]

Several floors were taken out by the jet? What brought the towers down, the jets, or the kerosene? It certainly wasn't the jets, otherwise an assymetrical collapse would have begun immediately.

Was it the kerosene? Air-aspirated hydrocarbon fires don't reach temperatures hot enough to turn steel into the structural equivalent of wet noodles.


They don't need to be, steel loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures than is needed.


They require blast-furnaces with pressurized, pre-treated air.


To melt steel yes. Much less is needed to weaken it.


According to most accounts, most of the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, and the remaining fuel was office furniture and similar materials. Cellulosic fires require the most optimal of conditions to even remotely affect steel,


Bull. Take a look at steel exposed to fire from normal sources. Set a barn on fire and the farming tools inside will be warped to hell and back. You are mixed melting with other effects.


and eyewitness accounts of firefighters indicate the fires were under control.


No, they were not. You better produce serious evidence of this.


If I'm wrong,


Oh, you are.


and this isn't the case, then certainly controlled demolition got a whole lot more cheap and convenient after 9/11. Why bother with extensive planning and thermite, when a simple jet fuel fire will suffice?


Because controlled demolitions are just that: Controlled. They are designed to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. The WTC collapse was nowhere near that as its collapse damaged several buildings and left debris over several acres. Not to mention the dust cloud that covered most of Lower Manhattan for hours afterward. If a demolition crew had these results, they'd be cashiered.

[Alek]

Then show me your math, tough guy. I showed mine.


Just under 10 seconds. Even Dr. Wood's site uses that number.

I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others. The buildings both collapsed symmetrically in under ten seconds, which is virtually free fall speed, which implies there was virtually no resistance from floor to floor, or from the 47 load-bearing steel columns.

Your comment was that the massive kinetic energy generated by X tons of structure falling was more than enough to overcome any resistance. I find this quite reasonable. The only problem is, I can't get from A to B. I find it hard to intuit how the structure at the point of impact would go from bearing the entire load, to none of it, unilaterally, symmetrically, and instantaneously, without any signs of buckling or weakening beforehand. The steel would have to go from say, 60% to 0% instantly. I find this infeasible. It's not as if modern buildings just disintegrate and collapse into a free fall when their structures fail. They buckle, then they topple, slowly (absent a thermite induced controlled demolition). I'm well aware that the effects of physics are often counter-intuitive, but I've also viewed evidence of burning steel skyscrapers (such as in Madrid) whereby the buildings burn for days, with white hot flames, yet no collapse. The heart of the evidence really lies with WTC7, because no planes hit the building. Even FEMA in the 9/11 commission report doesn't have a suitable explanation why this skyscraper imploded in a free fall. Check your emotions at the door and watch the WTC7 video and tell me that wasn't a controlled demolition. It's just blatantly obvious. I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.

wtc7.net

[kookbreaker]

I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others. The buildings both collapsed symmetrically


I assume when you say symmetrically, you mean they fell straight down. That is becuase there was insufficient force to move a large enough parts. This was something that fell over, this was


in under ten seconds, which is virtually free fall speed,


Several sources give times that are much longer than that. Objects can be seen falling at what really would be freefall, and they are faster than the tower collapse.


which implies there was virtually no resistance from floor to floor, or from the 47 load-bearing steel columns.


Only if you start with a false premise.

[Alek]

It was heavily damaged: (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html)

So your "scholars" don't know what the hell they're talking about, see?

It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?

[WildCat]

I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others. The buildings both collapsed symmetrically in under ten seconds, which is virtually free fall speed, which implies there was virtually no resistance from floor to floor, or from the 47 load-bearing steel columns.
I showed you evidence of the actual times, verified by seismic data, and they're greater than 10 seconds.

The heart of the evidence really lies with WTC7, because no planes hit the building. Even FEMA in the 9/11 commission report doesn't have a suitable explanation why this skyscraper imploded in a free fall. Check your emotions at the door and watch the WTC7 video and tell me that wasn't a controlled demolition. It's just blatantly obvious. I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.

wtc7.net
Now you're getting annoying. I linked to a NYC Fire Captains first-hand account of the WTC 7 damage, fire, and collapse. yet you brought it up again! I can only assume you're deliberately ignoring the evidence in order to confirm your own pre-determined beliefs.

[WildCat]

It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?
The entire interior of the building was on fire! READ THE FREAKING FIRE CAPTAIN"S ACCOUNT!!

[kookbreaker]

Your comment was that the massive kinetic energy generated by X tons of structure falling was more than enough to overcome any resistance. I find this quite reasonable. The only problem is, I can't get from A to B. I find it hard to intuit how the structure at the point of impact would go from bearing the entire load, to none of it, unilaterally, symmetrically, and instantaneously, without any signs of buckling or weakening beforehand. The steel would have to go from say, 60% to 0% instantly. I find this infeasible. It's not as if modern buildings just disintegrate and collapse into a free fall when their structures fail. They buckle, then they topple, slowly (absent a thermite induced controlled demolition).

No, they do not. Ever hear of the Sampoong Department store?

[kookbreaker]

It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this?


It also had a fire raging on several floors for at least seven hours.


There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?

Do you have any evidence to indicated that explosives were used? All you are doing is trying to poke holes while producing nothing of your own. There was plenty of damage to WTC7 to cause it to collapse.

[WildCat]

It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?
Yes, I do believe that. You, however, believe that 100's of tons of explosives was placed in the WTC and wired together w/o anyone noticing... and was covered up by thousands of people across both political partys. The mind boggles...:rolleyes:

[hellaeon]

alek,

Tell us what is REALLY the key to what made you go 'this is a cover up'

some of the stuff on the most popular websites is half produced facts and the like about what happened. They make many claims but refuse to show the complete sides of the story as it does not fit. They will show something, take it out of context and then when the source of that info steps forward, 'the government got to them'

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Read that, then argue with the evidence they produce? please, I bet you wont. If you can believe anything written on the nutter sites, why do you refuse to believe whats on one such as this? is it because its just too simple/cold/boring/uneventful? Not movie like enough? Not enough x files?

Alek, is it that hard to accept evidence from 100's of experts in engineering and physics over a few wild misquotes and half truths?

I know where ill put my trust.

[kookbreaker]

Notice how the 'tip of the iceberg' is turning out to be an ice cube?

[WildCat]

Hardly on fire at all... :rolleyes:

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/Pentagon/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

[hellaeon]

Yes, I do believe that. You, however, believe that 100's of tons of explosives was placed in the WTC and wired together w/o anyone noticing... and was covered up by thousands of people across both political partys. The mind boggles...:rolleyes:

hahaha!

I cant believe that this is a theory. Just that factor, how much explosives etc. No evidence of it, then the theory they will built in the cement when the WTC was built is just *spun out*.

These CT guys are all science experts and got their degrees at Hollywood film studios.

[delphi_ote]

I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others.
In other words, you don't understand the physics involved at even the most basic level. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

[kookbreaker]

FOr more fun, you can see how Dr. Jones is showing pictures of what is obviouly rebar reenforced concrete with some staining and telling us it is a molten slag of metal. PWAH!

[delphi_ote]

I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.
You don't need any kind of analytic argument to "know" all of the things you claim. You're engaged in the process of belief. If you were actually skeptical of this subject, you wouldn't be linking to websites you admit you can't even understand.

[WildCat]

Video of WTC 7 burning (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi), and firefighters talking about how it is unstable and making sure everyone is out of the way because they believe it will collapse.

But hey, a philosopher at the "scholars for truth" site says it wasn't hardly damaged and in no danger of collapse unless there were explosives planted in it...

[Alek]

They don't need to be, steel loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures than is needed.



Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451



No, they were not. You better produce serious evidence of this.



Or what? You'll sic Homeland Security on me?

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

If you search the net, you can find indexed versions of the audio, but I'm not your monkey.



Because controlled demolitions are just that: Controlled. They are designed to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. The WTC collapse was nowhere near that as its collapse damaged several buildings and left debris over several acres. Not to mention the dust cloud that covered most of Lower Manhattan for hours afterward. If a demolition crew had these results, they'd be cashiered.

So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11. This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want. You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.

Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete? What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing? BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on? All of this evidence is presented there, and there is more that isn't covered in the film. I realize this isn't as much fun as debunking ghost stories and establishing why the psychic friends network is a fraud, but please, for the sake of truth and our country, at least try to be slightly more objective and open minded? I'm not here to agitate, I'm here to raise awareness, and perhaps learn something.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296

[delphi_ote]

No, they do not. Ever hear of the Sampoong Department store?
Nice. In case he's too lazy to Google it (http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2005/09/explorer_collapse.html):
That is, until the evening of June 29th, 1995, when in less than 20 seconds, the mall came crashing down with an estimated 1,500 unsuspecting shoppers and employees inside. Not just a single floor or area, but five stories of the North wing pancaking into the four basements, killing more than 500 people and injuring over 900. There was no sign of a natural disaster, terrorist act, or a wrecking ball in sight. Yet one minute the department store was bustling with diners and shoppers and the next, all five floors were a heap of rubble. It is considered the worst structural collapse of a building in modern history.

[delphi_ote]

Kevin Ryan formerly of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this.
Ahem.

Also, according to the UL company spokesman:
UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center.

[WildCat]

Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Somehow, he doesn't seem to have noticed that a good number of the support columns were knocked out by a 140 ton battering ram hitting them at 450 mph...

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm
What is that supposed to show? :confused:

So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11. This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want.
Did you also forget about the 140 ton plane hitting the building at 450 mpf, taking out numerous supports?

You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.
Gladly. (http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095)

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Oops! That building used concrete as it's primary support. And what happened to the steel it did contain?
The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.
That's gotta hurt, don't it Alek?

Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete?
Yes. (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)


Hence it is theoretically possible forthe WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to
particles well within the observed particle size range.

What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing?
Seen where?

BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on?
Yes, I have. I even tolerated the horrible soundtrack beating incessantly through the whole movie. It's complete rubbish.

[kookbreaker]

Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451


Kevin Ryan works at the UL department that examines water. His comments will not impress me at all. It is a straightforward fact that steel weakens with heat.


Or what? You'll sic Homeland Security on me?

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

If you search the net, you can find indexed versions of the audio, but I'm not your monkey.


This is bull. Nothing on any of those excerpts indicates that the fires were under control. A few say they personally are not having problems with fire and smoke where they are. The fact that the building was showing visible flames until the collapse means that 'under control' is not what you think it is.


So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11.


Yes it did. The Ronan point apartment building, for example, had a partial collapse from fire. Its structure had the advantage in not making a total collapse. This was due to design differences from the WTC. There are other examples, but none as large as the WTC. of course, few of them had a plane full of fuel fly into them.


This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want. You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.


1) Not the same kind of structure as the WTC. Nor was the fire of the same type.

2) It did collapse. The steel columns from the 17th floor did fail, leaving only the concrete structure. The WTC did not have such a feature.


Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete?


Yes.


What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing?


Squibs can be caused by many things, these squibs are likely air & debris being ejected from pancaking floors. Real eplxosives squibs are much more obvious.


BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on? All of this evidence is presented there, and there is more that isn't covered in the film.


So, you are saying that you have twice as much crap as befire.


I realize this isn't as much fun as debunking ghost stories and establishing why the psychic friends network is a fraud, but please, for the sake of truth and our country, at least try to be slightly more objective and open minded? I'm not here to agitate, I'm here to raise awareness, and perhaps learn something.


No, you are determined to beleive in a conspiracy theory with minimal evidence. My mind is open, but you are trying to shovel garbage into it. Meanwhile, yours is so open it fell out onto the floor.

Your magic video isn't going to save you.

[Alek]

alek,

Tell us what is REALLY the key to what made you go 'this is a cover up'



The idea that WTC7 collapsed in a symmetric free fall, coupled with the fact that it was an unprecedented failure of structural engineering was the key for me. When I say unprecedented, I mean, it had *never* before happend in history. Please, prove me wrong. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so-called "skeptics" like yourselves can so quickly deny the fact that the building was a controlled demolition, after looking at the video evidence (which I presume at least some of you are objective enough to do, although I'm really not so sure). Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.



some of the stuff on the most popular websites is half produced facts and the like about what happened. They make many claims but refuse to show the complete sides of the story as it does not fit. They will show something, take it out of context and then when the source of that info steps forward, 'the government got to them'



I already admitted there is a lot of disinformation and lies out there, and your generalization is applicable to the official report. "negative association" is an established propaganda technique. Because someone associates aliens with controlled demolition theories doesn't mean the demolition theories are any less valid. Nor can the monolith that is the mainstream media validate the official story by reducto ad nauseum.



http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Read that, then argue with the evidence they produce? please, I bet you wont. If you can believe anything written on the nutter sites, why do you refuse to believe whats on one such as this? is it because its just too simple/cold/boring/uneventful? Not movie like enough? Not enough x files?

Alek, is it that hard to accept evidence from 100's of experts in engineering and physics over a few wild misquotes and half truths?

I know where ill put my trust.


I've already read it. The PopSci "debunking" was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security. How objective do you think it really is? It's full of propaganda, disinformation, and fallacy, designed to discredit critics of the official story. I'll be happy to read it again and respond item by item, if you're sincerely interested. I will point out the techniques they use, and the bias.

Scientific American had a similar article featuring skeptic Michael Shermer (perhaps some of you have heard of him?). The article features among other things, misquotation, strawman, reverse strawman, and bracketing in the techniques it uses to discredit. Again, this is not to say that much of the information out there isn't worthless, it's to point out how the entire debate is squelched among the narrow-minded because of these psychological tactics.

Like I said before in another post, you people need to overcome the emotional barrier which prevents you from considering possibilities which are highly disturbing, and which would force you to reconsider your entire worldview. Only then can you view the evidence objectively.

We live in a world where the pentagon has an "Office of Strategic Influence", and where "perception management" (propaganda) is commercialized.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/gen.strategic.influence/

http://scl.cc/home.php

Wake up.

[Alek]

In other words, you don't understand the physics involved at even the most basic level. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

And you do, hence the search for links to convince your roommate.

[delphi_ote]

You really want to see math, check out this report! (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)
Which concludes:
[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

The addendum to the above report uses seismic data to calculate the time of the collapses as:
WTC 1 - 13.48 sec.
WTC 2 - 12.07 sec.
That report is great! So many of my quick calculations are close to what they got. I underestimated the energy calculation by about an order of magnitude (I significantly underestimated the weight and I didn't have it falling nearly the same distance. I also wrote MJ when I meant GJ, but that's another story.) That means we're talking about more energy than a ton of TNT!

Especially interesting is this:
a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for subsequent impacts, most of the kinetic energy of collapse is conserved from one floor impact to the next. Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.

Thanks, WildCat. That paper just kills the "free-fall" nonsense. I actually grabbed video of the towers falling. This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly. I usually get angry even if I see this video on T.V. It's such a cheap attention grabber. Nothing gets me upset faster than people disrespecting what happened that day.

But seeing the physics in action is humbling. It's nice to finally see something beautiful in all that destruction and death.

[kookbreaker]

The idea that WTC7 collapsed in a symmetric free fall, coupled with the fact that it was an unprecedented failure of structural engineering was the key for me. When I say unprecedented, I mean, it had *never* before happend in history. Please, prove me wrong.


Sampoong. Gone.


Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so-called "skeptics" like yourselves can so quickly deny the fact that the building was a controlled demolition,
after looking at the video evidence (which I presume at least some of you are objective enough to do, although I'm really not so sure). Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.


Sorry bub, but what you have is zilch, nada, zip, nothing. You have a building that falls quickly (after being pounded with debris and being on fire for 7 hours) and nothing else. There is no evidence of explosives being used (they tend to make noise) nor thermite (which requires a lot of thermite). In the end, you have nothing but your own desire for a conspiracy.


I've already read it. The PopSci "debunking" was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security.


Poison the well much?


How objective do you think it really is? It's full of propaganda, disinformation, and fallacy, designed to discredit critics of the official story. I'll be happy to read it again and respond item by item, if you're sincerely interested. I will point out the techniques they use, and the bias.


Claiming to be able to do that is a far cry from being able to do it, especially given your pathetic track record so far.


Scientific American had a similar article featuring skeptic Michael Shermer (perhaps some of you have heard of him?). The article features among other things, misquotation, strawman, reverse strawman, and bracketing in the techniques it uses to discredit. Again, this is not to say that much of the information out there isn't worthless, it's to point out how the entire debate is squelched among the narrow-minded because of these psychological tactics.


Again, more complaints without substance.


Like I said before in another post, you people need to overcome the emotional barrier which prevents you from considering possibilities which are highly disturbing, and which would force you to reconsider your entire worldview. Only then can you view the evidence objectively.


Horsefeathers. We look at the facts, the evidence, and we find it wanting, badly. This is such a pile of junk the 9/11 CT'ers have culled together that it is just plain sad. the only reason anyone falls for this junk is an inherent need to beleive in conspiracy theories.

[delphi_ote]

And you do, hence the search for links to convince your roommate.
Exactly. I understand momentum, force, gravitation, mass, velocity, kenetic energy, calculus, and algebra. I can write equations and work them out. I can estimate roughly how each hypothesis would play out (especially when they show their math.)

My room mate can't. He's a realtor.

[WildCat]

Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.
Damn! The gig's up guys, he's figured out we're part of the conspiracy... :boxedin:

[kookbreaker]

Damn! The gig's up guys, he's figured out we're part of the conspiracy... :boxedin:

Heh.

Notice that making emotional accusations is all he has left after the pounding his nice shiney conspiracy collection took?

[Alek]

Damn! The gig's up guys, he's figured out we're part of the conspiracy... :boxedin:

Yes! You're the unwitting co-conspirator. It must be pretty fantastic for them to have the government, the mainstream media, and millions of little parrots like you doing the whitewashing for you. However, the shame in all of this is that the joke is really on you.

[kookbreaker]

Yes! You're the unwitting co-conspirator. It must be pretty fantastic for them to have the government, the mainstream media, and millions of little parrots like you doing the whitewashing for you. However, the shame in all of this is that the joke is really on you.

Oh, yeah, you're the open minded one. :rolleyes:

[delphi_ote]

The total kinetic energy generated by the collapse of one WTC tower was about 10^12J
That means the kinetic energy of the two towers collapsing alone was half a kiloton (1/20-1/40th the energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.) Holy crap!

[Alek]

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change

Wow, so, here I am responding to a post that no longer seems to exist! You open this thread about how you're watching this movie that makes you so angry (see above). Then on page five you post about how you just downloaded some video of the towers, and remark about how it's the first time in 4+ years that you've seen video of the towers falling. And how "beautiful" the physics were. That's interesting, considering how Loose Change is filled with footage of the towers falling, from many different angles! Apparently, you didn't watch it at all!

Did you delete that post because you realized it exposed you as a *liar*? That was pretty nimble. I guess when you're a liar sometimes you lose track of the lies.

For those of you who aren't moral cowards, liars, and who don't suffer from a parochial, narrow-minded worldview, here is a link to the video. You might try ACTUALLY WATCHING IT!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures. Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting. Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.

I leave you to resume your job of debunking ghost stories, UFOs, and the psychic friends network. See you in the Haliburton camps!

[LostAngeles]

I got about half of it watched before bedtime last night. The Popular Mechanics article handles most of what I saw and I can very easily handle the free-fall calculation they did.

They forgot air resistance. The equation the used would apply only in a vaccum. I'm pretty sure that's Chapter 2 or so in most Physics books.

(That and what other people had already pointed out.)

Anyway, thus far, not impressed. I'll try and watch a bit more tonight.

[hellaeon]

this is not an arguement about facts. Its about just hating the government and a really boring personal life void of excitement. The realisation of the same sh*t day in day out....

Just cause your paranoid alek, does not mean they aren't out to get you.

[WildCat]

For those of you who aren't moral cowards, liars, and who don't suffer from a parochial, narrow-minded worldview, here is a link to the video. You might try ACTUALLY WATCHING IT!
Been there, done that. It's nonsense.

As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures.
The doors thataway, just follow the guy who thinks Bigfoot is a shape-shifting alien w/ super-powers.

Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting.
PT Barnum couldn't make a dime here, he left in a huff too.

Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.
Don't worry, Superman will save the day just when all seems lost.

I leave you to resume your job of debunking ghost stories, UFOs, and the psychic friends network. See you in the Haliburton camps!
I bet you weave baskets in your "camp"...

[delphi_ote]

Then on page five you post about how you just downloaded some video of the towers, and remark about how it's the first time in 4+ years that you've seen video of the towers falling.
This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly.
Apparently physics is not your only deficiency...

[delphi_ote]

Did you delete that post because you realized it exposed you as a *liar*? That was pretty nimble. I guess when you're a liar sometimes you lose track of the lies.
The post is still there. You had to know it was still there, becuase you quoted it. That means you deliberately said something false when you knew the truth. I think that's probably pretty close to the dictionary definition of "lie."

[chipmunk stew]

Wow, so, here I am responding to a post that no longer seems to exist! You open this thread about how you're watching this movie that makes you so angry (see above). Then on page five you post about how you just downloaded some video of the towers, and remark about how it's the first time in 4+ years that you've seen video of the towers falling. And how "beautiful" the physics were. That's interesting, considering how Loose Change is filled with footage of the towers falling, from many different angles! Apparently, you didn't watch it at all!

Did you delete that post because you realized it exposed you as a *liar*? That was pretty nimble. I guess when you're a liar sometimes you lose track of the liesI think he meant this "deleted" post.

I actually grabbed video of the towers falling. This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly. (my emphasis)

Sheesh. When the paranoid get paranoid they really get paranoid.

eta: delphi, you're too quick for me.

[Curnir]

For those of you who aren't moral cowards, liars, and who don't suffer from a parochial, narrow-minded worldview, here is a link to the video. You might try ACTUALLY WATCHING IT!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

Ha ha ha ha ha *wipes eyes* *sighs* oh mercy...
Seen it, wasn't impressed.

As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures. Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting. Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.

oh my... Investigate 9/11 sure...
Loose Change was sort of like a person finding 3 spots of white colour on a blue wall and zooming in on the spots take pictures, and then loudly proclaim that the goverment wants people to believe that the wall is BLUE, even when he got the photographic evidence and several painters that testify that the paint on the photograph is indeed white. And since the colour oon the photographs is white... the whole wall must be white.

I leave you to resume your job of debunking ghost stories, UFOs, and the psychic friends network.
ha ha ha ha ha


See you in the Haliburton camps!

Soo Alek... you support Haliburton do you? *shakes head* for shame...


yeah yeah it was a bit silly of me but posts such as that just cracks me up :D

[kookbreaker]

As for me, I think I'll move on to greener pastures. Thank you for your time. I can't say that you've been cordial. You've been mostly arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and insulting.


We work with what you gave us. Which wasn't much. And now you are running away like a little coward because you couldn't defend your claims. Truth to be told, you got off light, and in fact if you were to look back, most of what you considered 'arrogant' simply was us not worshipping the lies you told us.


Despite this I sincerely hope you investigate 9/11, our country and way of life depends on the truth getting out.

Why is it that 'investigate 9/11' really means 'come to the same wacky, unsupported, more-paranoid-than-thou conclusion that Alek does'?

Another sniveling, whiney conspiracy theorist bites the dust.

[kookbreaker]

What's really fun is that to some 9/11 CT'ers, Alek is a government disinfo agent. These CT'ers go for a minimalist approch, claiming that Bush knew 9/11 would happen at let it happen, or that the CIA manipulated Al Queda into the attack. They take everything else at face value (building collapse, Plane at the Pentagon, etc) and consider those who harp on those issues to be fools following idiotic arguements to make all Ct'ers look bad.

So Alek is just a tool of Bush & Halliburton. :D

[Manny]

AlekAre you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit?[/quote]Yes, mostly. the rest are just idiots who let their politics trump their critical thinking skills.Googling some of those names reveals that it's probably the opposite. Pretty standard-issue neo-anarchists eager to blame the government for every evil in the world. Poet/professors who allege that Osama has been dead for four years and that the CIA has been making his tapes, perma-students who have run for office on the Marijuana Party, folks like that. In their vehement hatred of America, they have a vested interest in terrorism succeeding -- they want to create enough social discord to usher in their radical politics.

[JPK]

Good morning Alek.
At the risk of making you look even more paranoid, would you care to tell us why exactly you think was conductced by the US government? I mean they must have had a reason right? How long ago did this plan start to take place? What other buildings are rigged to blow? You would have a great case if you could find one before someone else runs a plane into them.
You do not seem to be doing well by supplying physical evidence to hold up your end of the story so why not let us know your opinion on this.
JPK

[CurtC]

[Way back in post #93...]
One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of liesSo your premise is that the Commission is full of lies? No wonder you're having trouble here.

I do have one technical point to add - you can't seem to see how WTC7's collapse could look like a demolition. It's too sudden and too fast-falling for you. There's a reason that they look alike. In a controlled demolition, they don't plant so many explosives that building is obliterated by them. They use just enough explosives to make it so that the building supports can't hold its weight, then they let the law of gravity finish the job. Ideally, they start in the middle so that the interior walls fall first, and the exterior walls fall inwards towards the rubble. But the key is that they use just enough explosives that it can't support itself, then it falls down all at once.

With WTC7, it stood until it reached a point that it couldn't support itself anymore. Once that point is reached, the whole thing collapses. There's no way that a 50-story building could partially crumble, or go in stages. Once part fails, the whole thing can't hold up all that weight anymore and it suddenly all falls down. The failure in this case started in the middle, apparently because that's where the damage was heaviest.

[VespaGuy]

/raises hand/

Hey Alek? I have a question for you. I asked this to a different CT in a previous 9/11 thread but never got an answer.

According to you, the "controlled demolition" of WTC7 is what convinced you of a conspiracy, right? According to your conspiracy, WHY was WTC7 destroyed?

[VespaGuy]

Perhaps you could answer this question posed by someone on another forum, I think it's a reasonable question:

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "


I find it telling that the original poster of this question doesn't even know what a floor TRUSS is (it's not a "trust"). Why should I believe that he/she did any research into his own question if he couldn't even take the time to find out what the hell was talking about? Pure ignorance.

I was a truss designer for 6 years. The truss/trust thing always bugged me.

[delphi_ote]

I find it telling that the original poster of this question doesn't even know what a floor TRUSS is (it's not a "trust"). Why should I believe that he/she did any research into his own question if he couldn't even take the time to find out what the hell was talking about? Pure ignorance.

I was a truss designer for 6 years. The truss/trust thing always bugged me.
I read a couple research papers recently about using machine learning techniques to design building trusses. From that small introduction to the field, I have to say I'll always admire those in your profession. It was a startlingly complex topic!

I'm sure you have a very good understanding of how some of the stresses on the trusses in the WTC would behave. Care to share some of your professional experience with us?

[VespaGuy]

Well, I haven't touched a truss in a while and I am by no means a structural engineer, but the premise is simple - acheiving strength through mechanical triangulation using lightweight material.

For instance, I designed wood trusses (both floor and roof). A normal conventional framed roof would use 2x10's or even 2x12's at a 12" or possibly 16" spacing (depending on the size of the roof). The same roof could be framed using a truss made solely out of 2x4 lumber (using triangulation)... and the spacing could be adjusted to 24" o.c. . The main advantage of trusses is the ease of installation, and the longer unsupported spans.

One thing that trusses are notorious for, though, is the way that they fail. I'll do my best to explain in layman's terms. For a 2x12 roof to fail, a fire has to burn through a substancial portion of the lumber to get just one member to fail. But with a truss, you basically have less material, with a greater surface area. Although it's stronger, it can fail much, much quicker. Ask any fire fighter - they hate trusses because they fail so quickly (and without warning).

In the case of the WTC, I found the PBS special very informative. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly the trusses are what were holding the buildings together after the impact. Of course when you start changing reactions around (members that should be in compression become in tension and vice-versa), and add high temperatures, I'm surprised the towers stood as long as they did.

[delphi_ote]

Well, I haven't touched a truss in a while and I am by no means a structural engineer, but the premise is simple - acheiving strength through mechanical triangulation using lightweight material.

For instance, I designed wood trusses (both floor and roof). A normal conventional framed roof would use 2x10's or even 2x12's at a 12" or possibly 16" spacing (depending on the size of the roof). The same roof could be framed using a truss made solely out of 2x4 lumber (using triangulation)... and the spacing could be adjusted to 24" o.c. . The main advantage of trusses is the ease of installation, and the longer unsupported spans.

One thing that trusses are notorious for, though, is the way that they fail. I'll do my best to explain in layman's terms. For a 2x12 roof to fail, a fire has to burn through a substancial portion of the lumber to get just one member to fail. But with a truss, you basically have less material, with a greater surface area. Although it's stronger, it can fail much, much quicker. Ask any fire fighter - they hate trusses because they fail so quickly (and without warning).

In the case of the WTC, I found the PBS special very informative. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly the trusses are what were holding the buildings together after the impact. Of course when you start changing reactions around (members that should be in compression become in tension and vice-versa), and add high temperatures, I'm surprised the towers stood as long as they did.
Thanks, Vespa. That was actually really cool. The changing stresses is the aspect of this that interests me most. The truss structural optimization problems I was looking at in these machine learning papers considered only the load of the building. I imagine the machine learning algorithms would not make good practical trusses because they were so simplistic.

There seem to be so many things to consider, especially when building something like the WTC. The weight of the building would be hard enough to account for, but throwing in the varying wind resistance, pressure, and varying properties of the building materials... I'm a amazed they can even start to account for things like the building being ripped half apart by an airplane.

[CurtC]

In case Alek ever comes back, or at least until the next CT believer sees great significance in the "near free fall speed" collapse of the towers, I've just thought of a new question to ask:

What is it that causes intentionally demolished buildings to collapse at near free-fall speeds, and how would that same reasoning not apply to the WTC buildings (in the standard model explanation)? I can't imagine any coherent answer to this question.

[delphi_ote]

In case Alek ever comes back, or at least until the next CT believer sees great significance in the "near free fall speed" collapse of the towers, I've just thought of a new question to ask:

What is it that causes intentionally demolished buildings to collapse at near free-fall speeds, and how would that same reasoning not apply to the WTC buildings (in the standard model explanation)? I can't imagine any coherent answer to this question.
The usual argument is that explosives were planted in the building and detonated in a way that caused the building to collapse at free fall.

[kookbreaker]

The usual argument is that explosives were planted in the building and detonated in a way that caused the building to collapse at free fall.

The explosives, of course, were soundless and invisible. Which means the CIA has perfected hushaboom.

[VespaGuy]

Thanks, Vespa. That was actually really cool. The changing stresses is the aspect of this that interests me most. The truss structural optimization problems I was looking at in these machine learning papers considered only the load of the building. I imagine the machine learning algorithms would not make good practical trusses because they were so simplistic.

There seem to be so many things to consider, especially when building something like the WTC. The weight of the building would be hard enough to account for, but throwing in the varying wind resistance, pressure, and varying properties of the building materials... I'm a amazed they can even start to account for things like the building being ripped half apart by an airplane.

That's exactly the problem with the WTC scenerio. In most cases, trusses are designed to handle the maximum vertical live and dead loads for each floor. Each member (called "chords" or "webs") and joint within the truss is designed for the maximum stress under compression or tension.

But the WTC trusses picked up addditional lateral loads once the plane hit the tower. Although there are redundancies built into most engineered systems, I highly doubt that these trusses were designed to accomodate that load.

I also agree that the WTC was a wonder of engineering. The fact that both towers withstood the impact of a plane and continued to stand at all is just amazing.

Delphi - you should pick up a copy of "Why Buildings Fall Down". It pre-dates the WTC disaster, but it's a great read and it mentions many of the things that we have discussed (unplanned variables, etc).

[drfrank]

....
In the case of the WTC, I found the PBS special very informative. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly the trusses are what were holding the buildings together after the impact. Of course when you start changing reactions around (members that should be in compression become in tension and vice-versa), and add high temperatures, I'm surprised the towers stood as long as they did.
Oh my God, there must have been a counter conspiracy at work that specifically strengthened the trusses to try and stop the government implementing their evil plan :jaw-dropp

Get to work on it, Alek!

[VespaGuy]

It seems like this is the second time I've come to a 9/11 CT thread just in time to see the thread die.

I guess I'll never find out why the government destroyed WTC7...

[Hellbound]

VespaGuy:

I know. They were trying to make sure they got rid of Jimmy Hoffa's body.

:D

[Hutch]

I guess I'll never find out why the government destroyed WTC7...

Well, IIRC from reading these threads here and at the BAUT and ApolloHoax Forums among others, there was some type of "Secret" Government office in WTC7 and the powers-that-be did not want that activity exposed so they "arranged" for the destruction of WTC7.

too bad alex didn't have any staying power, I've seen these run into the mutiple pages elsewhere--heck, we never even got to the WTC fellow saying "pull it" argument...

[VespaGuy]

Well, IIRC from reading these threads here and at the BAUT and ApolloHoax Forums among others, there was some type of "Secret" Government office in WTC7 and the powers-that-be did not want that activity exposed so they "arranged" for the destruction of WTC7.

too bad alex didn't have any staying power, I've seen these run into the mutiple pages elsewhere--heck, we never even got to the WTC fellow saying "pull it" argument...

I haven't heard the "Secret Government Office" conspracy. Very convienient.

But how did they plan on "covering it up"? They "covered up" the destruction of the two towers with planes. They "covered up" the "missle" in the pentagon with another plane. But what had they planned on covering up the WTC7 collapse with? Did they plan on the debris to fall specifically on that building alone to explain the collapse? It really seems like bad planning considering the level of creativity, intelligence, and resources the conspiracy nuts seem to give to the powers-that-be.

Alek likes to pretend that he's a critical thinker, but there are so many holes in the conspiracy theory he can't possibly be thinking about anything that doesn't support his little theory.

Here's just a few head-scratchers that I have. There are hundreds more. None of which make any sense.

If explosives were used, why was there a delay between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the building? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just collapse the building at the moment of impact, thus hiding the detonation and eliminating so much fodder for the conspiracy theorists?

If theorists claim that it was a controlled demolition, then I'm assuming that a "normal" collapse would have been messier somehow (buidling collapsing sideways, etc). If a messier collapse was somehow a possibility, again why would their be a wait between the impact and the detonation? Why risk it?

[chipmunk stew]

I haven't heard the "Secret Government Office" conspracy. Very convienient.

But how did they plan on "covering it up"? They "covered up" the destruction of the two towers with planes. They "covered up" the "missle" in the pentagon with another plane. But what had they planned on covering up the WTC7 collapse with? Did they plan on the debris to fall specifically on that building alone to explain the collapse? It really seems like bad planning considering the level of creativity, intelligence, and resources the conspiracy nuts seem to give to the powers-that-be.

Alek likes to pretend that he's a critical thinker, but there are so many holes in the conspiracy theory he can't possibly be thinking about anything that doesn't support his little theory.

Here's just a few head-scratchers that I have. There are hundreds more. None of which make any sense.

If explosives were used, why was there a delay between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the building? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just collapse the building at the moment of impact, thus hiding the detonation and eliminating so much fodder for the conspiracy theorists?

If theorists claim that it was a controlled demolition, then I'm assuming that a "normal" collapse would have been messier somehow (buidling collapsing sideways, etc). If a messier collapse was somehow a possibility, again why would their be a wait between the impact and the detonation? Why risk it?Not to mention, why would they even make it a controlled demolition? If mass destruction, not safety, was the goal, why not just wire it kind of pseudo-randomly so it looked more uncontrolled?

[Blackwell]

Not to mention, why would they even make it a controlled demolition? If mass destruction, not safety, was the goal, why not just wire it kind of pseudo-randomly so it looked more uncontrolled?

Bingo! If you look at some of the "squib" claims, and some of the video segments and stills that the "planned explosion" CTers show as evidence, they show random "squib" blow-outs - but how do they reconcile that with an apparently symmetrical, controlled fall? If what they point to are squibs, why didn't the buildings fall to the side? On the other hand, if it was a controlled demo, why don't we see an orderly, timed squib sequence?

I see Alek is still lurking here; what a coward.

[Shadowhawk]

I find it hard to intuit how the structure at the point of impact would go from bearing the entire load, to none of it, unilaterally, symmetrically, and instantaneously, without any signs of buckling or weakening beforehand. The steel would have to go from say, 60% to 0% instantly. I find this infeasible. It's not as if modern buildings just disintegrate and collapse into a free fall when their structures fail. They buckle, then they topple, slowly (absent a thermite induced controlled demolition).

Please go to here (http://www.safetyflorida.usf.edu/care/Photo_Archive/photo_archive.html) and watch the "Big Blue" crane collapse video.
As the base of the crane fails (the operators were not using it in windy conditions properly), it begins to fall sideways. When the main boom of the crane encounters some of the steel roof structure that's already been installed, there is so much momentum involved that the steel folds like paper.
The structure of The Twin Towers, while certainly stronger, had orders of magnitude more mass involved in their collapse. With the sheer momentum involved here, it hardly matters if the Towers' support structure was magically changed to titanium, balsa wood, or tissue paper when the impact from the floor above arrived. The changes in the speed of collapse would've been within observational error (after all, we didn't have any high-speed cameras pointed at the towers, and things were getting occluded by dust anyway) at the scales involved.

As for 'slowly' buckling and toppling buildings, that's because controlled demolition teams WANT them done that way. It spreads out the energy of the collapse and reduces vibration.
Most 'natural' building collapses are on a much smaller scale. Loads gradually change as a piece of the structure fails, so they slowly buckle until they reach a complete failure point.
The loads in the Towers changed instantaneously, beyond their failure point, so they failed instantaneously.

[Alek]

Bingo! If you look at some of the "squib" claims, and some of the video segments and stills that the "planned explosion" CTers show as evidence, they show random "squib" blow-outs - but how do they reconcile that with an apparently symmetrical, controlled fall? If what they point to are squibs, why didn't the buildings fall to the side? On the other hand, if it was a controlled demo, why don't we see an orderly, timed squib sequence?

I see Alek is still lurking here; what a coward.

I'm not lurking, I'm waiting for an earnest, objective post to respond to. Since everyone here already knows what happend and what didn't on 9/11, that isn't likely to happen.

The bautforum that was linked to earlier contains a much more civil discussion, and isn't quite so provincial.

I've come to the conclusion that self-designated skeptics are vain, condescending, and intellectually insecure, much like Mensans. They'd like to think they're endowed with large amounts of reason and objectivity when they aren't.

Don't cast your pearls before swine.

[Hellbound]

I'm not lurking, I'm waiting for an earnest, objective post to respond to.
I'm waiting for someone who agrees with me.
Since everyone here already knows what happend and what didn't on 9/11, that isn't likely to happen.
Since you all insist on evidence and don't simply accept my word as the absolute truth, I'm taking my toys and going home.
The bautforum that was linked to earlier contains a much more civil discussion, and isn't quite so provincial.
These people agree with me, so they aren't close-minded.
I've come to the conclusion that self-designated skeptics are vain, condescending, and intellectually insecure, much like Mensans.
I'm pissed because you showed me up for a fool. Not that I can admit that.
They'd like to think they're endowed with large amounts of reason and objectivity when they aren't.
Since I can't offer any evidence to prove my arguments, or disprove yours, I'll attack your character. That'll show ya!
Don't cast your pearls before swine.
You might as well give up, because I'm a pig, and I'm just going to wallow in the mud.

Translation Services courtesy of Huntsman Idiolinguistics, Inc.

[Alek]

Please go to here (http://www.safetyflorida.usf.edu/care/Photo_Archive/photo_archive.html) and watch the "Big Blue" crane collapse video.
As the base of the crane fails (the operators were not using it in windy conditions properly), it begins to fall sideways. When the main boom of the crane encounters some of the steel roof structure that's already been installed, there is so much momentum involved that the steel folds like paper.
The structure of The Twin Towers, while certainly stronger, had orders of magnitude more mass involved in their collapse. With the sheer momentum involved here, it hardly matters if the Towers' support structure was magically changed to titanium, balsa wood, or tissue paper when the impact from the floor above arrived. The changes in the speed of collapse would've been within observational error (after all, we didn't have any high-speed cameras pointed at the towers, and things were getting occluded by dust anyway) at the scales involved.



I completely agree. It's unreasonable to assume the towers would, or could topple past a certain point. As another poster on BAUT forum correctly pointed out, physical models don't always scale well. For instance, you couldn't take an 11' steel model of the towers and expect it to behave similarly to the 110 story real thing. The blue crane video you linked is evidence of this.

I would also point out that there is video evidence which tends to corroborate the OCT (official conspiracy theory). There are video angles of the south tower in which it appears to topple, collapsing asymmetrically before failing to do so and then falling straight down. After some searching, I found a link to the video:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

I do not think this negates the likelyhood of a controlled demolition (in light of the multitude of other evidence), but it certainly strengthens the idea that the towers fell asymmetrically as would be expected from asymmetric damage (kinetic energy of jets + hydrocarbon fires).

I think because of this, it's also somewhat more difficult to ascertain whether a collapsing skyscraper on the order of the twin towers is collapsing symmetrically, or asymmetrically, based on video evidence.

Another interesting video I found is this:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is?



As for 'slowly' buckling and toppling buildings, that's because controlled demolition teams WANT them done that way. It spreads out the energy of the collapse and reduces vibration.
Most 'natural' building collapses are on a much smaller scale. Loads gradually change as a piece of the structure fails, so they slowly buckle until they reach a complete failure point.
The loads in the Towers changed instantaneously, beyond their failure point, so they failed instantaneously.

I've learned more about controlled demolition recently. An interesting site to visit is Implosion World (http://www.implosionworld.com). They offer lots of video plus the history of controlled demolition. Some of their demolition videos feature buildings that are much closer in scale to the WTC 7 building. These buildings can be seen crumbling, toppling, and imploding in various fashion. The collapse of the WTC 7 building strikes me as a prime example of an A+ controlled demolition. In fact, if asymmetric fire damage can cause such a breathtakingly symmetrical near free-fall collapse and implosion as witnessed of that building, then perhaps I should consider a career in demolition. After all, if random fires can cause such a tidy rubble pile, how hard can it be?

Some will cite eyewitness testimony that the south face of WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris from the collapse of the north tower, and the testimony is credible (it's from a fire captain as i recall). There is little to no video or photographic evidence of this. However, if you accept this, then you should also accept other firefighters video testimony that they heard what they thought were bombs going off in the towers, and you should accept this without interpretation. If one firefighter is capable of making the reasonable observation that the building was severely damaged, then certainly other firefighters can make the reasonable observation that they heard what they thought were bombs going off. Structural engineers are more qualified in ascertaining severe damage, and demolitions experts are more qualified in identifying explosive detonations aurally, but this doesn't mean firefighters can't do a decent job of either.

The Bankers Trust building deserves attention. Here is a satellite photo of the World Trade Center complex pre-9/11:

http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ivanov/SatelliteP/Big/worldtradecenter_nyc800.jpg

The WTC 7 building appears just southeast of 12 o'clock, to the northeast of the WTC 6 building. The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_130libertyst.jpg

So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building? Well, Banker's Trust was closer to the south tower than the WTC 7 building was to the north tower. Banker's Trust also didn't have the WT6 building in between it and the north tower. WTC 6 is a miraculous story by itself. After receiving the full brunt of the north tower's collapse, plus fire damage, it failed to collapse! It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds". Note that WTC 6 is visible as the small structure in the northwest corner of the WTC complex. Finally, Banker's Trust wasn't leased by Larry Silverstein.

So, what indeed is the difference between these buildings that caused the spectacular, unprecedented (well, unless you count the twin towers) collapse of WTC 7, but left Banker's Trust standing tall?

One shouldn't select evidence at all, let alone in a crime the scope of 9/11. While there is an overriding emotional, and by the mainstream media's account, evidential reason to accept the government's OCT, that doesn't justify the selection of evidence as many so-called "skeptics" on this thread have done. Consider all the evidence, with an open mind. There is much, much more.

[delphi_ote]

I actually got a response to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1507592#post1507592)!

Ryan,

Thank you. I will ask our dean to look at your concerns and respond.

Jim Barker

[delphi_ote]

Delphi - you should pick up a copy of "Why Buildings Fall Down". It pre-dates the WTC disaster, but it's a great read and it mentions many of the things that we have discussed (unplanned variables, etc).
Sir, I will most definitely do so. It sounds very interesting, and I appreciate the recommendation!

[Alek]

I actually got a response to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1507592#post1507592)!

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please refrain from name-calling.

[delphi_ote]

... and you should accept this without interpretation.
Why? If something sounded like a bomb, it must be a bomb? That's absurd.

Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

Do you have video of the building burning on multiple floors like we've seen here for WTC7?

[delphi_ote]

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.
Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.

[WildCat]

Another interesting video I found is this:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is?
Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.

Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?

The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_130libertyst.jpg

So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building?
Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer.

It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds".
Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes. :rolleyes:

[Alek]

Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.

You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing.

Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar.

So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety?

Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism?

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

[Alek]

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please refrain from name-calling.

Please moderate fairly. I've been called plenty of names. Scroll up.

[WildCat]

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.
I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there?

So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0...

Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1512213&postcount=204) of this post (http://this post)?

[Hellbound]

The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032

Besides, we're still waiting for evidence of anything outside of what would be normal for a plane impact and fires.

Sure, you've offered a lot of speculation and post-hoc reasoning, but to borrow from forensics, you haven't met the proof:

You've offered no believable motive.
You haven't offered any method that has reliable evidence to back it up (so far, ONE person out of thousands in and around the buildings that claims to have heard a boom from the basement, with no real detail).
No evidence of anyone sneaking into the building to plant bombs.
No evidence of controlled demolition (in fact, evidecne runs counter to this idea, squibs especially)
No evidence of the free fall speeds you spout (easily disproven by the video, where debris falls faster than the building. Not freefall.)
No "melted steel"
No reason why an already damaged structure should not collapse (when plenty of reasons were offered, by experts in the field, as to why it should, and many suprised it lasted as long as it did)

By the way, those airline stock trades everyone talks about were fully investigated by the SEC. Most of the airline trades were traced back to certain predictions made by investment advisors prior to 9/11, not the government or related parties. The documents advising these trades gave solid market reasons for them, no indication of any sort of prior knowledge.

[delphi_ote]

You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing.

Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar.

So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety?

Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism?

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.
You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly.

By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate.

I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.

[Alek]

Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.



The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that.



Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?



I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away. Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you? This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse.

Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, "Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me.



Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer.



I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2. This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings! Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?). I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished.



Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes. :rolleyes:

Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses.

Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell.

I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.

[Alek]

I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there?

So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0...



Proclaiming victory and that you've debunked my claims doesn't make it so. It's more evidence of the vapidity, vanity, and intellectual insecurity I've seen from people who self-identify as "skeptics". The only thing that has been debunked in my mind, so far, is the idea that the towers should have toppled more due to the asymmetric nature of their damage. Clearly there weren't many possible ways in which they could have fallen, other than about straight down. And this was by a user on the bautforum.

Is this about your ego, or about finding the truth?



Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1512213&postcount=204) of this post (http://this post)?

Not yet, I'll take a look.

[delphi_ote]

That was disappointing.

[Alek]

You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032



There are too many logical and conceptual errors in that last bit of inanity to bother with.

I would merely point out that any theory can be disproven with just one piece of evidence, and that the valuation of evidence, particularly non-falsifiable evidence, is subjective.



You've offered no believable motive.



This is a forum populated by supposed "skeptics". I'm trying to stick to what can be falsified, which of course is difficult with any conspiracy theory. Offering motives is just speculation. I've spent the last 10 or so years learning about the motives, and they are fantastic. In fact, if I offered them, you would no doubt denounce me as a kook, not that it already hasn't been implied. So lets try and stick to the physical evidence, at least for the time being. We're having enough trouble seeing eye-to-eye with that.

I will admit that my weltanschauung greatly influences my idea of what happend on 9/11. The context of our existence colors all of our perceptions, whether we like it or not, and no one is free from bias.

[WildCat]

The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that.
You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way.

I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away.
Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking?

Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you?
It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors.

This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse.
Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y) on your interpretation of his work:
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me.
I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down.

Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc.

Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination.


I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2.
Funny, because an example was posted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507801&postcount=154) earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower (http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095) fire. To refresh your memory:
The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.
If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete.

It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line?

This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings!
I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757.

Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?).
One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507647&postcount=127) you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse.

Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?

I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished.
Which boils down to...
http://files.politicalbrief.com/i_want_to_believe-web.jpg

Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses.
As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi), complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore.

Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell.
Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"?

I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.
But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.

[Alek]

You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly.

By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate.

I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.


This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here!

Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said:



Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change



Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true. When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety. Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied.

Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful. Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending. Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate.

So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk.

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

[kookbreaker]

This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here!


Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup?


Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said:


No. Not even close. This is like saying someone did not read all of StormFront's doctrines is lying for saying they've seen their stuff and found it to be racist.


Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true.


Wrong. That wasn't even a good try.


When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety.


I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it?


Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied.


Just keep telling yourself that and you might beleive it. You'll be the only one, but that's better than none.


Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful.


Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak.


Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending.


Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo!


Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate.


Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it.


So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk.


Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies.

Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up.


The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

Sounds like Delphi's got your number.

Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving?

[delphi_ote]

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?
If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable.

It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic.

[delphi_ote]

Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California.
You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense.

Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?

[Alek]

You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way.



Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice.

Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence".



Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking?



Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away.



It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors.



It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground.



Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y) on your interpretation of his work:



Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important.



I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down.



That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them.



Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc.



You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations.



Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination.



I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true *ESPECIALLY* concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive.



Funny, because an example was posted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507801&postcount=154) earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower (http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095) fire. To refresh your memory:



I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7 (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg). Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't.



If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete.

It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line?



Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing.

You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell".

Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.



I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757.



I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters".



One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507647&postcount=127) you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse.

Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?



I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg). Well, maybe in your mind.



Which boils down to...
http://files.politicalbrief.com/i_want_to_believe-web.jpg



Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear.



As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi), complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore.



I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I *still* don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid.



Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"?



A few paragraphs up, you said this:

"There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..."

Which is it?



But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.

If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them.

[Alek]

You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense.

Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?

I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt. I grew up in Miami, so I can attest that central Florida pretty much sucks. It's got a bunch of people with parochial attitudes.

[delphi_ote]

I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt.
What was juvenile about my e-mail? What Dr. Wood is doing is dishonest and unprofessional. She wants to use her credentials and the reputation of her university to support her conspiracy theory writings, but she isn't subjecting those writings to academic criticism, because she won't place her name on the actual writings themselves.

I e-mailed her at her university e-mail account and asked if she was responsible for the website. She has not yet responded. I'll let you know if she does.

[Alek]

Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup?



I'm attacking him for lying, and being a weasel in general. I fully support people's right to stop watching films that they think suck. However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I think a little reading comprehension is in order here.



I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it?



Nobody asked him his opinion. He slagged a film he hasn't watched. How's that for skepticism?



Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak.



You can hold whatever you want. I'm only suggesting he try the honest approach (http://notseenmovies.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_notseenmovies_archive.html#111765686696 643463).



Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo!



That's probably because I'm outnumbered and feeling defensive. Maybe if you were a little nicer, and maybe if people were a little more honest and objective, things would be different.



Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it.



I wasn't aware the use of the 1st amendment was contingent on your degree-issuing university's approval. It appears that she posted her analysis using the pseudonym "Jane Doe", with no mention of her identity or credentials what-so-ever. Then the Scholars website linked her page with her identity. Then slimeball decided to make a lame attempt to get her in some sort of trouble, which probably won't happen anyway because she didn't do anything "wrong". The only thing he's exposed is the fact that he has a little snitch-like mentality which is more suited to the East German Stasi secret police than the United States of America. Exercising your right to free speech in this country, anonymously or not is never "wrong", YOU, are wrong.



Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies.



Pure whine. Do you want some cheese to go with that?



Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up.


Sounds like Delphi's got your number.



It sounds like delphi has a little friend to run a smokescreen for him.



Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving?

I didn't lie, I left, and came back. Would you prefer I go? Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Then you can go back to debunking Bigfoot sightings.

[WildCat]

Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice.
You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please.

Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence".
You haven't even said what you think this is evidence of. Frankly, it isn't evidence of anything, and you've pretty much admitted as much.

Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away.
Look Alek, you can't just post some half-ass video, say "whoa, look at that" and hold it up as some sort of evidence. It's not. If you think it is, be specific what you think it means and why. Otherwise, what use is it? Your little game of saying "it isn't evidence, but then it is" is tiring and pointless.

It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground.
There is no way you can tell what causes the shaking of the camera! The seismic data shows no tremors before the towers fell. That is a fact, if you claim otherwise I will call you a liar because you cannot produce a seismogram showing otherwise - at least not the one from Columbia U., which is the only one that recorded the tremors.

Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important.
Listen Alek, your conspiracy heroes published incomplete data and quoted Lerner-Lam out of context. The evidence for that is obvious and overwhelming. Now you call him a "moral coward"? You are a dishonest liar and have no interest at all in the facts of the matter. The data is all that's important, it's too bad your bunch of conspiracy kooks deliberately misrepresented it. The seismograms can be seen here. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html) They don't show what you claim they do.

That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them.
PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Looks like you get to claim the distinction for your minute...

You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations.
It took 20 tons of explosives to implode the Kingdome. The Kingdome is much, much smaller than the WTC. Yes, I am claiming that it would take at least 100 tons of explosives to bring down the 2 towers and WTC 7.

Please explain how this was accomplished.

I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true *ESPECIALLY* concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive.
Except you'd better have a whole lot of evidence to ignore the simpler theory. And so far, you have none at all!

I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7 (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg). Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't.
This is yet another display of your dishonesty and mischaracterizing of this event - it was not due solely to the fire and nobody has claimed it was. That you so desperately insist on bringing up this completely moot point shows the your desperation at the complete inefficacy of your theory. Now, show me a building that was set on fire due to a 140 ton jetliner hitting it at 450 mph that didn't collapse. And why are you so dumbfounded that it collapsed symmetrically? Would you expect 250,000 tons of steel and concrete to fall over on its side due to a collapse on the 80th floor? If you do, you're an idiot.

Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing.
I'm not assuming anything! The steel portion of the Madrid tower completely collapsed, there's even pictures on the site for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously going to dispute this?

You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell".
This is why nobody here can take you seriously. You swallow this crap from your conspiracy sites hook, line, and sinker w/o even thinking it might not be the way it is portrayed. The fact is (according to Leslie Robinson, chief structural engineer of the WTC) they were designed to absorb the impact of a 119,000 kg 707 that was lost in fog, had dumped excess fuel, and was flying at just above stall speed (290 kph). The 767's (my mistake, it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon) that hit the WTC weighed in at 125,000 kg and were traveling at 944 kph. Full details here. (http://here.) Now, that's a bigger impact by order of magnitude over the design specs.
http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/kinetic.bmp
The fact that they held up as long as they did is the wonder here. But, I'm sure, this will be one more fact you'll brush aside in favor of your pet theory.

Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.
We've plugged those holes as fast as you post them. They're complete nonsense.

I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters".
But "it" is the firefighters...

I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg). Well, maybe in your mind.
We've shown over and over what nonsense that is.

Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear.
You have no evidence at all that the official version is a lie, we have given you ample evidence showing your sites are full of lies. You believe the lies because you want to believe in them.

I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I *still* don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid.[quote]
You are wrong in so many ways. To begin with, the firefighters were reluctant to enter it not because of what happened earlier, but because they could hear the structure coming apart. They also noticed the top portion was kinked, and you can see this in other pics. The fire caused the entire interior to sag in, and eventually fall. There's a neat little avi here (http://www.911myths.com/html/../assets/multimedia/WTC7_Loop_3.avi) that shows your "squibs" actually don't appear until after the building starts to collapse. Now, that would be a neat trick!

[quote=Alek]A few paragraphs up, you said this:

"There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..."

Which is it?
What the hell are you talking about? Read the interview! He's describing walking towards WTC 7, he nor any other firefighter was not actually in the building, and no one had attempted to put it out. They thought about fighting the fire, but changed their minds because it was obviously too dangerous.

If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them.
You must have a different meaning of the word than the dictionary does.

[Alek]

If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable.



I wasn't aware you owned the forum. Perhaps the other users here see differently. I didn't come here to pick a fight, I came here to warn you that the emperor has no clothes. If "soundly beaten" means exposing you as a dishonest slimeball, then I was soundly beaten. I don't want a white flag, this isn't supposed to be a war. It's supposed to be about finding the truth, and having respect for dissenting views. It's apparent that the truth means quite little to you. You can't even bring yourself to watch a movie with dissenting views on one of the most important events in human history, the premise of which has major implications for the future of humanity. You don't have to agree with anything. But you won't even WATCH! You're a coward, and a fraud as a skeptic.



It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic.

Why isn't it a good idea? Is that some sort of threat? What are you going to do, write a letter and have me banned? I'd prefer instead that you SAC UP and watch the unseen film you disparage in the forum YOU created ABOUT THE FILM YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED. Are you getting angry? Good! It gets a lot worse. There is a lot more to be angry about.

I apologize for claiming you deleted the post, I was mistaken, you merely edited it. Nevertheless, my point remains valid.

[Euromutt]

There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2.

I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true."Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment"? What is that supposed to mean, other than serving as a smokescreen for selecting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion?
The bit about "Roosevelt's status as a traitor" smells of circular "logic" to me:
Why did Roosevelt expose the Pacific Fleet to attack?
- Because he was a traitor.
How do we know he was a traitor?
- Because he exposed the Pacific Fleet to attack.

As it happens, I've been rereading Eagle Against The Sun: The American War With Japan by Ronald H. Spector, and in chapter 5, "The Issue Is in Doubt," he discusses fairly extensively how the Japanese managed to surprise the Pacific Fleet the way they did.
Some "revisionist" historians have argued the President Roosevelt and his close associates in the cabinet (Hull, Stimson and Knox) deliberately exposed the fleet to destruction at Pearl Harbor in order to ensure support for America's entry into World War II. Authors such a Charles C. Tansill, Charles A. Beard, Robert Theobald, and Harry Elmer Barnes claim [all circa 1950!] that since the U.S. was reading the Japanese code, Washington must have known in advance about the attack, and that Roosevelt consciously withheld vital information from the Hawaiian commanders. It was his purpose, they maintain, to keep the fleet in harbor and thus vulnerable to attack.
Although revisionists are convinced that Roosevelt purposely kept [General] Short and [Admiral] Kimmel in the dark, it might as plausibly be argued that both of them conspired to ignore Washington's repeated warnings. [Spector goes on to list a series of warning transmitted in the two weeks preceding the attack.]
The fact was that Kimmel and Short were alert to the possibility of imminent war with Japan. They simply did not expect it to begin at Pearl Harbor. Despite repeated fleet exercises, war games, studies, plans and discussions concerning the danger of surprise air attack, despite repeated surprise alerts and drills, the fact remained that American army and navy leaders at the highest levels simply could not really believe that a surprise air attack on the fleet would actually take place. In the most exhaustive study of Pearl Harbor, Gordon Prange singles out this fundamental belief as the root of the whole tragedy.This is entirely consistent with the point Spector makes in earlier chapters that, at the time, the upper echelons of both the US and Japanese navies consisted of students of Alfred Thayer Mahan's doctrine of "command of the sea," which required a concentrated fleet of battleships to defeat the enemy's naval forces in a single decisive engagement. As the cliché goes, military commanders tend to prepare for the next war by re-fighting the last one, and when they were the winners last time round, they tend to stick with what works. In the case of both the Americans and the Japanese, Mahan's doctrine had worked, but the problem was that those occasions were, respectively, the Battle of Manila Bay (1898) and the Battle of Tsushima (1905), both of which, like Mahan's doctrine, predated the development of combat aircraft and aircraft carriers. Even by 1941, both naval staffs were firmly convinced of the battleship's supremacy; carrier-based aircraft were thought to be good for scouting and supporting combat role at most. At first glance, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack would appear to contradict this notion, conducted as it was almost entirely by carrier-based aircraft, but closer examination supports it: the attack was aimed specifically at the American battle line, since the Japanese believed this to form the primary threat to their own fleet. Moreover, the Japanese that the only way aircraft could defeat battleships was by catching them by surprise while they were in port, which is why the attack was carried out the way it was. Even so, Yamamoto's plan met with considerable skepticism on the part of the Japanese Naval General Staff.

Onthe site of some Greek television show (http://www.megatv.com/warzone/english/show_month/documentary.asp?ekpobi=13), I found some stuff on Stinett:64 years later a number of historians believes that President Roosevelt and the American leadership as a whole provoked the Japanese in the Pacific while later deliberately ignoring all warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbour in order to achieve America's involvement in the war. "We now know that firstly, there was a plan for an overt act of war and that, secondly, we had de-coded the Japanese Naval code. That was all kept secret for 60 years," according to journalist and author Robert Stinett who for the last 17 years has studied more than 2 million classified Naval documents. As for the so-called Provocation Policy of President Roosevelt, Stinett is firm: "The President wanted us to enter war operations. He followed what Plato had said; 'a noble lie will sacrifice the few to save the many.' That was the idea".

The position of the American author of the book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbour is shared by British historian David Irving: "We knew it was going to happen. Churchill knew also because he had a variety of sources. There had been a great cover up on the side of the Americans."(Punctuation edited)
Stinett's assertion that "that was all kept secret for 60 years" is false right off the bat. Despite the fact that it was first published in 1985, and cites earlier sources, Eagle Against The Sun extensively covers the American war plans--"Orange" and "Rainbow"--as well as the American gathering of signal intelligence on Japanese operations. In fact, if Stinett's statement were true, it would have been impossible for Stinett to publish Day of Deceit in 2000!

There was indeed "a plan for an overt act of war," the aforementioned "Orange Plan." What Stinett neglects to mention was that Orange was first drafted in 1905 (almost thirty years before FDR became president!) as part of a series of contingency war plans against potential enemies. Other "color plans" were "Green" against Mexico, "Black" against Germany, and "Red" against Great Britain. The existence of the latter indicates that the existence of a "color plan" did not ipso facto indicate that military action against a particular country was a given. "Orange," moreover, was based from its inception on the assumption that the Japanese would first attack the Philippines, and subsequently engage the US Pacific Fleet when it entered the western Pacific on its way to relieve the Philippines. This assumption, again, led to the refusal to genuinely believe that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

That Stinett's assertion is supported by David Irving does not exactly inspire confidence, given that Irving is primarily known for being a Holocaust denier.

Regarding the signal intelligence, well that's been thrashed out, and not just in Eagle Against The Sun. Spector continues:Among the mass of secret Japanese messages which were being intercepted and decoded in Washington there were signs that pointed towards Pearl Harbor, but many others seemed to indicate an attack on the Philippines and Singapore--or even against the Soviet Union. As Roberta Wohlstetter, a perceptive student of the Pearl Harbor debacle observes: "We failed to anticipate Pearl Harbor not for want of the relevant materials but because of a plethora of irrelevant ones. . . . There is a difference between having a signal available somewhere in the heap of irrelevances and perceiving it as a warning, and there is also a difference between perceiving it as a warning an acting on it."Spector then addresses the claims made by John Toland in his 1982 book Infamy, pointing out the likely inaccuracy of the Lurline intercept, the clutter in which the Twelfth Naval District intercept got lost, and the fact that the Dutch East Indies intercept was relayed to DC without any reference made to Hawaii. He then turns to Toland's claim that, had Washington alerted Kimmel and Short, Nagumo's strike force would have turned back without attacking Pearl Harbor.

The problem with Toland's claim, as with every other "FDR let the Pacific Fleet be attacked to get the US into the war" claim, is that Nagumo's orders explicitly included instructions to go ahead with the attack even if his force were discovered out of range of Hawaii. The die was cast the moment Nagumo sailed for Hawaii on November 26th, so what FDR, Stimson, Hull, Knox and/or Marshall did or did not know by December 4th is academic.

[Z]

Well, I have watched the complete film. I have, as of now, visited twelve different websites espousing a variety of conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've now read about wooden mockups of 757s loaded with combustable materials; heat-beams from satellites used to pulverize concrete in the towers; advanced free-standing holography used to overlay a poorly-rendered 767 over a military missile or jet; secret nuclear devices that, amazingly, leave behind no dangerous radiation after use; and so on, and so forth. It's hard to wade through any one of these websites without encountering some strange X-Factor-style nonsense used to justify away any number of inconsistancies in their stories.

Even those that maintain some facade of rationality and lucidity are loaded with fallacies, ignorance, and a lot of leapt-to conclusions. Yes, a few things really don't add up; a few things would do well to be exposed to closer investigation. But the vast majority of what was on Loose Change is tripe. And Alex's behavior since joining the forums isn't going to bring more people towards his alleged 'truths', either. He parrots facts from the conspiracy sites without knowing what he's talking about, or even verifying the truth of those facts; while disparaging facts on other sites, again without verifying the truth of those facts. He tosses ad-hom and insult about as if it somehow justifies his apparent willful ignorance. And he still can't present any single piece of 'evidence' for the conspiracy theory that can't be understood or explained simply enough.

Now, I grant you, most of us here are NOT structural engineers, or physics majors, or demolitions experts; but the reports of those that would know best are the reports I'm most likely to accept. So far, the most qualified reports I've been able to read all accept that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the massive structural damage from the aircraft impacts, coupled with intense fires, creating a set of conditions suitable to allow total unilateral structural failure of the building at and above the points of impact; resulting in further structural failure as several thousand tons of debris impacted with already weakened upper structures, resulting in a pancake-style domino effect. Sure, they could be presenting the prepared party lines; but I find it highly unlikely that every qualified person who has reviewed the destruction is on the payroll of the Powers That Be.

Yes, a true skeptic (whatever that is) would probably want to sit and watch the entire movie (over time). He would then want to do some fact-checking, make some notes, etc. This film would make him think - but it would not lead him to the same conclusions it has led Alex to. It wouldn't be the end of the process, but a step in it; Alex, unfortunately, stops at any step that requires him to invalidate or even question anything presented in support of massive conspiracy theories by our own government.

My suggestion to those still on the fence: don't make Alex's mistake. CONTINUE to question, read, research, and learn. Even if it means you have to change your mind a hundred times. Even if it leaves you somewhat confused or bewildered. It would be better to base a world view on a COMPLETELY informed foundation, than on a biased representation from either side.

[Alek]

You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please.



I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.



You haven't even said what you think this is evidence of. Frankly, it isn't evidence of anything, and you've pretty much admitted as much.



It's evidence of tremors before the collapse of the north tower. Video evidence. Unfortunately, you aren't capable of discerning the difference between evidence and proof.



Look Alek, you can't just post some half-ass video, say "whoa, look at that" and hold it up as some sort of evidence. It's not. If you think it is, be specific what you think it means and why. Otherwise, what use is it? Your little game of saying "it isn't evidence, but then it is" is tiring and pointless.



Ahh. I can feel the objectivity. Pro OCT video clips = "evidence". Anti OCT video clips = "some half-ass video". You, much like kookbreaker, have a serious reading comprehension problem. Neither did I say the video wasn't evidence, nor did I say it was proof. Your little game of saying "Where's the evidence! You have no evidence!" ad nauseum is pointless. Is this SOP for debunking ghost stories and psychics?



There is no way you can tell what causes the shaking of the camera! The seismic data shows no tremors before the towers fell. That is a fact, if you claim otherwise I will call you a liar because you cannot produce a seismogram showing otherwise - at least not the one from Columbia U., which is the only one that recorded the tremors.


Listen Alek, your conspiracy heroes published incomplete data and quoted Lerner-Lam out of context. The evidence for that is obvious and overwhelming. Now you call him a "moral coward"? You are a dishonest liar and have no interest at all in the facts of the matter. The data is all that's important, it's too bad your bunch of conspiracy kooks deliberately misrepresented it. The seismograms can be seen here. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html) They don't show what you claim they do.



I hadn't analyzed the seismic data before, I hadn't even seen that video until today. It looks like it's worth some timeline analysis.

I'm not a liar and I'm interested IN ALL the facts of the matter. In fact, i've learned precisely why the twin towers couldn't have toppled, and that the Madrid bombing is incorrectly cited as being a steel structure. I've admitted when I've been wrong, and when I've misunderstood. You, on the other hand, have shown no objectivity at all, nor is any of the skepticism you reserve for alternative theories directed at the official government lie.



PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Looks like you get to claim the distinction for your minute...



Thanks.

<stuff deleted>



This is yet another display of your dishonesty and mischaracterizing of this event - it was not due solely to the fire and nobody has claimed it was. That you so desperately insist on bringing up this completely moot point shows the your desperation at the complete inefficacy of your theory. Now, show me a building that was set on fire due to a 140 ton jetliner hitting it at 450 mph that didn't collapse. And why are you so dumbfounded that it collapsed symmetrically? Would you expect 250,000 tons of steel and concrete to fall over on its side due to a collapse on the 80th floor? If you do, you're an idiot.



This is yet another display of your lack of reading comprehension. I was clearly referring to the WTC 7 building.

I already admitted the 500,000 ton towers could not topple. But thanks again.



I'm not assuming anything! The steel portion of the Madrid tower completely collapsed, there's even pictures on the site for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously going to dispute this?



You assumed that because the concrete Madrid tower had a partial collapse (I wonder if all the steel failed at once and magically fell to the ground simultaneously?) that steel structures suffer complete collapse due to fire, such as witnessed at wtc7.net. And I asked you for the third time to provide some examples, some engineering precedent, and you haven't.

<stuff deleted>




What the hell are you talking about? Read the interview! He's describing walking towards WTC 7, he nor any other firefighter was not actually in the building, and no one had attempted to put it out. They thought about fighting the fire, but changed their minds because it was obviously too dangerous.



Apparently you are still unclear on this, and I don't need to read the interview transcript, I've watched the actual video. I'll try one more time to clarify it for you, but I'm not going to bother posting the actual transcripts because you're unreasonable. If you want to find the truth then you will, if not, you won't.

Silverstein originally said in the video "we've already had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and then "we watched the building collapse".

Then, shortly after that, a WTC worker is featured who says "We're getting ready to pull building six" followed by another man who says "we had to be careful about how we demolished building six"

So, subsequent to this Silverstein comes out and says essentially that he was referring to the firefighters, not the building. The only problem is, there were never any firefighters IN the building to begin with, as you yourself have already posted, I think twice now. Thus making Silversteins claim more mysterious. Here is a link which documents this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm

I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.

[Z]

I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.

Why do I not believe you?

[Euromutt]

Why do I not believe you?Maybe because he's already said it once and gone back on his word.

Additional note to the Pearl Harbor stuff I posted previously: the claim that Roosevelt deliberately exposed the Pacific Fleet to destruction has been around a long time. Beard, one of the "revisionist" historians Spector mentions, first published the idea in 1948; Tanliss, Barnes and Theobald published in 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively. As stated, Toland published Infamy in 1982. Every time, the evidence to support the notion has been found wanting. Why didn't this stop types like Stinett and Richard Maybury (http://www.bluestockingpress.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=88) from regurgitating this long-discredited notion? It's fairly obvious: much of the reasons certain people concoct, or subscribe to, conspiracy theories is because they feel a deep-seated need to feel they are smarter than the majority of humanity. So when you've come up with your thesis upon which to graduate from the College of It Stands to Reason, and have carefully selected only that evidence which supports while diligently disregarding the evidence which contradicts it, it follows that you're unlikely--full of your own cleverness as you are--to check whether someone else might have come up with the same idea before you did, let alone check whether, and how, that person was debunked.

Unfortunately, I predict we're going to be seeing the same lame-ass conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 crop up repeatedly in the course of our lifetimes, as a next generation "thinks outside the box" and comes up with a "real" explanation of events, and thinks he's really clever for being the first to see it, when it fact the only reason he hasn't heard read it in the history books was because it was discredited the last time, and the time before that, etc.

(Yet another prediction that'll never win the JREF Million...
Me: Mr. Randi, I predict Jon Hogue is going to write another sh*t book about Nostradamus.
Randi: I could've told you that for a dollar seventy-five!)

[Alek]

"Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment"? What is that supposed to mean, other than serving as a smokescreen for selecting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion?
The bit about "Roosevelt's status as a traitor" smells of circular "logic" to me:
Why did Roosevelt expose the Pacific Fleet to attack?
- Because he was a traitor.
How do we know he was a traitor?
- Because he exposed the Pacific Fleet to attack.



Hello, Euromutt.

It means the dialectic explains a pattern recurrent throughout history of governments using false flag attacks or similar deceptions to embroil their unwilling populaces into war. I don't try to select or fit evidence. For me it represents an element of a cynical worldview which is a starting point for historical review. Others may assume that history is made by the impersonal struggles between ideas, political systems, ideologies, races, and classes. I don't particularly subscribe to that.

I thought it was clear that my thinking Roosevelt was a traitor was independent of whether he had forknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. There is no circular logic here, I merely didn't elaborate on why I think he was a traitor. I'll tell you why, it's because he signed executive order 6102 expropriating (more like confiscating, but he offered a token price) the private gold of US citizens, essentially under the premise that their hoarding was responsible for the Great Depression. I don't know whether he had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor or not.


...

Even by 1941, both naval staffs were firmly convinced of the battleship's supremacy; carrier-based aircraft were thought to be good for scouting and supporting combat role at most. At first glance, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack would appear to contradict this notion, conducted as it was almost entirely by carrier-based aircraft, but closer examination supports it: the attack was aimed specifically at the American battle line, since the Japanese believed this to form the primary threat to their own fleet. Moreover, the Japanese that the only way aircraft could defeat battleships was by catching them by surprise while they were in port, which is why the attack was carried out the way it was. Even so, Yamamoto's plan met with considerable skepticism on the part of the Japanese Naval General Staff.



This is interesting, because I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete. If I recall correctly, not a single aircraft carrier was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and it was the battleships which were mostly destroyed. The carriers were elsewhere. I must confess ignorance of this subject though, I haven't read Stinnett's book nor any others about WW2, but it sounds like a fascinating subject.



Onthe site of some Greek television show (http://www.megatv.com/warzone/english/show_month/documentary.asp?ekpobi=13), I found some stuff on Stinett:(Punctuation edited)
Stinett's assertion that "that was all kept secret for 60 years" is false right off the bat. Despite the fact that it was first published in 1985, and cites earlier sources, Eagle Against The Sun extensively covers the American war plans--"Orange" and "Rainbow"--as well as the American gathering of signal intelligence on Japanese operations. In fact, if Stinett's statement were true, it would have been impossible for Stinett to publish Day of Deceit in 2000!



I would say Stinnett is probably guilty of some self-aggrandizement here, by implying that his book is uncovering the "secret". It's probably pedantic to discredit him by suggesting that he should have said 59 years instead of 60. If the information was still mostly a secret after 1985 then he should probably be forgiven.


...

That Stinett's assertion is supported by David Irving does not exactly inspire confidence, given that Irving is primarily known for being a Holocaust denier.



Isn't it a fallacy to suggest Stinnett's credibility depends on Irving? Stinnett doesn't have any control over who supports his work and who doesn't. If Adolf Hitler supports Josef Wagner's work, does this discredit Wagner?


...

Regarding the signal intelligence, well that's been thrashed out, and not just in Eagle Against The Sun. Spector continues:Spector then addresses the claims made by John Toland in his 1982 book Infamy, pointing out the likely inaccuracy of the Lurline intercept, the clutter in which the Twelfth Naval District intercept got lost, and the fact that the Dutch East Indies intercept was relayed to DC without any reference made to Hawaii. He then turns to Toland's claim that, had Washington alerted Kimmel and Short, Nagumo's strike force would have turned back without attacking Pearl Harbor.

The problem with Toland's claim, as with every other "FDR let the Pacific Fleet be attacked to get the US into the war" claim, is that Nagumo's orders explicitly included instructions to go ahead with the attack even if his force were discovered out of range of Hawaii. The die was cast the moment Nagumo sailed for Hawaii on November 26th, so what FDR, Stimson, Hull, Knox and/or Marshall did or did not know by December 4th is academic.

I don't understand how this could be academic in context. The essence of Pearl Harbor was that it was a surprise attack, which was responsible for slaughtering 2400 people. If indeed there was foreknowledge, the element of surprise would have been lost, the casualties would have been far less and the US Navy could have parried the attack.

I imagine Stinnett's point is that absent such a brutal surprise attack with so many casualties, absent the horrific stories of trapped men burning and drowning inside the doomed battleships, and assuming a successful parry of Nagumo's attack, the American public would have remained disinterested in the war.

Your point is well taken though, Nagumo's actions would have resulted in a declaration of war by the US in any case. However, the relative lack of US casualties from a failed japanese incursion as opposed to a successful surprise attack would have undoubtedly resulted in more polarization and less unity and jingoism.

Again I must confess to being mostly ignorant of the details of WW2 history, perhaps you can enlighten me on some of them. I just read a Pearl Harbor FAQ (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm) which had some interesting tidbits, for instance:

"Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the Kurile Islands and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on 26 November 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn 7 December 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor."

and:

"The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. "

Here is a link which documents the location of the US carriers (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-9.htm).

Oh, by the way, my name is Alek, with a 'k'.

[Alek]

Well, I have watched the complete film. I have, as of now, visited twelve different websites espousing a variety of conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've now read about wooden mockups of 757s loaded with combustable materials; heat-beams from satellites used to pulverize concrete in the towers; advanced free-standing holography used to overlay a poorly-rendered 767 over a military missile or jet; secret nuclear devices that, amazingly, leave behind no dangerous radiation after use; and so on, and so forth. It's hard to wade through any one of these websites without encountering some strange X-Factor-style nonsense used to justify away any number of inconsistancies in their stories.



Thanks for watching the film (seriously), and for remaining open minded. Please try not to associate every implausible theory with every other theory, or theorist. Those of us who think something is seriously wrong are not served by all of the misinfo, and even disinfo that is out there. Perhaps you're more open-minded than I am, because not only do I not give credence to any of the above "theories" you mention, but I haven't even taken the time to review them. I doubt I could bother wading through them, either, and I suppose that's how most of you feel about Loose Change, or some of the other 9/11 films that are out there.



Even those that maintain some facade of rationality and lucidity are loaded with fallacies, ignorance, and a lot of leapt-to conclusions. Yes, a few things really don't add up; a few things would do well to be exposed to closer investigation. But the vast majority of what was on Loose Change is tripe.



I'm sorry you feel that way. I feel the same way about the 9/11 Commission report.



And Alex's behavior since joining the forums isn't going to bring more people towards his alleged 'truths', either. He parrots facts from the conspiracy sites without knowing what he's talking about, or even verifying the truth of those facts; while disparaging facts on other sites, again without verifying the truth of those facts.



You may be right. Sometimes I get so tired of bickering over what the "facts are" that I get defensive. Sometimes it seems like I take more crap than I dish out. I guess I hope that the best I can do is to throw a few links out there and hope someone picks them up. Or link to a few videos, and hope someone sees something that makes them question. Given the dis/misinfo that's out there, I could be wrong about a number of things. I don't think it's fair to say I don't know what I'm talking about. We just exist in different paradigms, such that it makes it difficult to communicate. And I reject the notion that you or anyone else is more capable of "verifying the facts". I think the basic problem here is that I don't trust official sources, and so when they are sourced, I become more skeptical. Yet ultimately, I am forced to resort to many of them myself.



He tosses ad-hom and insult about as if it somehow justifies his apparent willful ignorance. And he still can't present any single piece of 'evidence' for the conspiracy theory that can't be understood or explained simply enough.



I'm in the distinct minority. In fact, I haven't seen anyone here who has even the most remote amount of skepticism for the OCT. Most every post directed towards me, with a few exceptions, has some degree of patronization, condescension, or ad hominem. The cumulative effect of this is to make me highly annoyed, which results in a positive feedback loop making everyone else annoyed. Try to keep in mind that it's pretty much one versus many here, and cut me some slack please.



Now, I grant you, most of us here are NOT structural engineers, or physics majors, or demolitions experts; but the reports of those that would know best are the reports I'm most likely to accept. So far, the most qualified reports I've been able to read all accept that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the massive structural damage from the aircraft impacts, coupled with intense fires, creating a set of conditions suitable to allow total unilateral structural failure of the building at and above the points of impact; resulting in further structural failure as several thousand tons of debris impacted with already weakened upper structures, resulting in a pancake-style domino effect. Sure, they could be presenting the prepared party lines; but I find it highly unlikely that every qualified person who has reviewed the destruction is on the payroll of the Powers That Be.



I agree, I find that highly unlikely too. However, it may be an oversimplification of reality. It's well-known that intelligence agencies conspire in pretty elaborate ways to get their work done. For instance, they make a science of compartmentalization so as to ensure a number of things, like plausible deniability, secrecy, disavowment, etc... For instance, they're much more likely to hire real "terrorists" to perform some unsavory act than to order patriotic agents to do it.



Yes, a true skeptic (whatever that is) would probably want to sit and watch the entire movie (over time). He would then want to do some fact-checking, make some notes, etc. This film would make him think - but it would not lead him to the same conclusions it has led Alex to. It wouldn't be the end of the process, but a step in it; Alex, unfortunately, stops at any step that requires him to invalidate or even question anything presented in support of massive conspiracy theories by our own government.



Of course I disagree. Not only hadn't I heard of some of the absurd theories you enumerated at the beginning of your post, I've discounted the ones I had heard of. I don't see a boogeyman around every corner. Unfortunately, I do see a non-stop pattern of fraud, deception, and abuse, and it doesn't begin nor end with government. Lets just say that I reserve the same amount of skepticism for the mainstream that the mainstream reserves for the "fringe". I think this is fair enough.



My suggestion to those still on the fence: don't make Alex's mistake. CONTINUE to question, read, research, and learn. Even if it means you have to change your mind a hundred times. Even if it leaves you somewhat confused or bewildered. It would be better to base a world view on a COMPLETELY informed foundation, than on a biased representation from either side.

I would hope I'm not guilty of that, but sometimes I wonder. I've got just as much invested in what I believe as anyone else does. Nobody wants to be proven wrong, nobody wants to repudiate comfortable lies for disturbing truths. But I've been there, and I've done that, rightly or wrongly, and it wasn't easy. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about 9/11, and about other things. Maybe someone can convince me.

[Alek]

Why do I not believe you?

I meant I'm done with the "what Larry Silverstein said" versus "what Larry Silverstein meant". It's a dead horse. I think the man is suspect. Watch PBS: America Rebuilds for yourself.

[kookbreaker]

I'm attacking him for lying, and being a weasel in general.


Based on unfounded prejudices.


I fully support people's right to stop watching films that they think suck. However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I think a little reading comprehension is in order here.


Again, if the movie makes 10 deliberate mistakes in the first 10 minutes, it really doesn't pay to continue watching it, and it you are well within your rights to report it as a piece of propaganda.


Nobody asked him his opinion. He slagged a film he hasn't watched. How's that for skepticism?


See above.


You can hold whatever you want. I'm only suggesting he try the honest approach (http://notseenmovies.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_notseenmovies_archive.html#111765686696 643463).


See above


That's probably because I'm outnumbered and feeling defensive. Maybe if you were a little nicer, and maybe if people were a little more honest and objective, things would be different.


Wait a freaking moment, WE need to be nicer? Take a look at your second post to this fourm:


Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.


You came in this forum with a chip on your shoulder, hoping for a fight. Well you got one, and got your butt handed to you. Now you are whining about us not being nice...that's a laugh


I wasn't aware the use of the 1st amendment was contingent on your degree-issuing university's approval.


I wasn't aware the first amendement said anyting more than the GOVERNMENT will not interfere with your free speech. It says nothing about your employer, or any other private entity.


It appears that she posted her analysis using the pseudonym "Jane Doe", with no mention of her identity or credentials what-so-ever. Then the Scholars website linked her page with her identity. Then slimeball decided to make a lame attempt to get her in some sort of trouble, which probably won't happen anyway because she didn't do anything "wrong". The only thing he's exposed is the fact that he has a little snitch-like mentality which is more suited to the East German Stasi secret police than the United States of America. Exercising your right to free speech in this country, anonymously or not is never "wrong", YOU, are wrong.


When one uses ones position at as an employee as a basis of authority, one had best make certain that one is in line with the employers wishes. If I use my companies' name to spout anti-semitic/racist propaganda I will likely face problems with my employer as well. Comparing this to 'Stasi' is ludicrous, since the government has little to do with this issue. If she loses her job as aresult of this, she has only herself to blame.

You obviously are too naive to understand that 'Free Speech' does not mean speech without consequences.


Pure whine. Do you want some cheese to go with that?

It sounds like delphi has a little friend to run a smokescreen for him.

I didn't lie, I left, and came back. Would you prefer I go? Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Then you can go back to debunking Bigfoot sightings.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

[WildCat]

I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.
Your "evidence" was exposed as the BS it is. Let's review:
1. The WTC shouldn't have fallen, it was designed to withstand the impact of a airliner. This was shown to be a gross mischaracterization.

2. The WTC couldn't have fallen only due to the planes hitting it and subsequent fires. This was shown to be false, as every single structural engineering report agrees w/ the official reasons for collapse.

3. WTC 7 was hardly dameged, but fell anyway. Shown to be false, after which you changed your tune to:

4. WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition due the fact no other steel building had collapsed due to fire. Shown to be false, as the steel portion of the Madrid tower did collapse. And the video shows what you think are "squibs" only appear after the building begins to collapse. In addition, firefighters near WTC 7 reported hearing the building beginning to collapse, and the videos and pictures show it is kinking and bending before it collapsed.

5. Seismic data shows trmors from the WTC before they collapsed. Shown to be false, using the very data you cited.

6. Shaky video that proves nothing.

In addition, you have not shown (or even offered a half-assed theory of) how the many tons of explosives necessary could have been installed and wired together w/o anyone noticing.

Neither did I say the video wasn't evidence, nor did I say it was proof.
So now you're back to admitting the video is not evidence? Then why did you post it?

Your little game of saying "Where's the evidence! You have no evidence!" ad nauseum is pointless. Is this SOP for debunking ghost stories and psychics?
It's SOP skeptics use for extraordinary claim that is offered w/ little or no evidence. It is very effective in separating the excrement from shinola.

I hadn't analyzed the seismic data before, I hadn't even seen that video until today. It looks like it's worth some timeline analysis.
And yet you accepted w/o question a non-experts interpretation of the seismic data, and called the originator of the data a "moral coward" for not agreeing w/ your non-expert. Nice!

The video, coupled w/ the interview, also completely refutes your conspiracy theorists explanations of "what really happened". Yet, you are and will remain unconvinced (IMHO) because you really aren't interested in knowing any facts that make your theory inconvenient. In case you're wondering, psychics, homeopaths, dowsers, alien abductees, etc all use the same tactics here.

I'm not a liar and I'm interested IN ALL the facts of the matter. In fact, i've learned precisely why the twin towers couldn't have toppled, and that the Madrid bombing is incorrectly cited as being a steel structure. I've admitted when I've been wrong, and when I've misunderstood.
Yet even when your pet theory has these holes blown into it, you still can't accept the more reasonable explanation.

You, on the other hand, have shown no objectivity at all, nor is any of the skepticism you reserve for alternative theories directed at the official government lie.
See? You keep saying the official explanatio is a lie, even though all your evidence as such has been shown to be false! And you're going to lecture me on objectivity?!
You assumed that because the concrete Madrid tower had a partial collapse (I wonder if all the steel failed at once and magically fell to the ground simultaneously?) that steel structures suffer complete collapse due to fire, such as witnessed at wtc7.net. And I asked you for the third time to provide some examples, some engineering precedent, and you haven't.
You haven't offered an example of a building of similar construction that received extensive damage and fires on par w/ WTC 7 that didn't collapse. See the problem here? W/o a reasonably close comparison, your above statement means squat.

Silverstein originally said in the video "we've already had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and then "we watched the building collapse".
Silverstein assumed command of the firefighting efforts on 9/11? I haven't seen the PBS documentary, so I have no idea in what context this quote was from. And context is everything in such matters.

Then, shortly after that, a WTC worker is featured who says "We're getting ready to pull building six" followed by another man who says "we had to be careful about how we demolished building six"
Again, what is the context?

So, subsequent to this Silverstein comes out and says essentially that he was referring to the firefighters, not the building. The only problem is, there were never any firefighters IN the building to begin with, as you yourself have already posted, I think twice now. Thus making Silversteins claim more mysterious. Here is a link which documents this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm
:jaw-dropp Wow! "Prison Planet"? The same guy who thinks there's RFID chips in $20 bills? Who thinks bin Ladin makes video/audio tapes under the direction of the CIA? You're joking, right?

I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.
Please stay, we need a good laugh around here every now and then...

[kookbreaker]

This is interesting, because I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete.


Nope. Battleships were still considered the mainstay. Carriers were unproved technology. The idea that the Government would toss the proven stuff in favor of something they hoped would work is absurd. Had the carriers been present, they would have been secondary targets, since it was the Battleships the Imperial Navy felt would interfere with the invasions of the Phillipines, etc.

Furthermore, the era of carrier battles only lasted a short time during the war. The last one being done in 1944, and there were only two signifigant carrier battles when you get down to it. Carriers were useful in many respects, but they were best suited for taking out other carriers. In the end, the Pacific saw more Battleship fights than Carrier battles, but the Carrier battles got all the attention.


If I recall correctly, not a single aircraft carrier was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and it was the battleships which were mostly destroyed. The carriers were elsewhere. I must confess ignorance of this subject though, I haven't read Stinnett's book nor any others about WW2, but it sounds like a fascinating subject.


Regarding Stinnett, my comments in this thread still stand:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507557&postcount=112

The man is deceptive WRT and his sources contradict him.

[delphi_ote]

However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me.
I have watched the film. Not all of it. How many times do I have to say that before you'll stop making this accusation? At this point, I can't help but think you're making this mistake deliberately.

[delphi_ote]

Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned?
Are you implying that the e-mail I sent was nasty? I was very courteous and outlined my case clearly. I also thanked him for his response.

Or do you think it's nasty to point out academic dishonesty? You never responded to my previous e-mail about the subject. It's very important that academics don't abuse their credentials, because it damages people's trust in experts.

This accusation seems a lot like the one about my not having seen the film. You're harping on the same note without listening to what anyone is saying.

[delphi_ote]

Please stay, we need a good laugh around here every now and then...
Don't worry. He's not going anywhere.

[JPK]

Good morning Alek.
Please allow me to quote myself from a previous post that you seemed to have missed.
Good morning Alek.
At the risk of making you look even more paranoid, would you care to tell us why exactly you think was conductced by the US government? I mean they must have had a reason right? How long ago did this plan start to take place? What other buildings are rigged to blow? You would have a great case if you could find one before someone else runs a plane into them.
You do not seem to be doing well by supplying physical evidence to hold up your end of the story so why not let us know your opinion on this.
JPK
It does apear that you have a problem with the "Big Bad Government" and that seems to be driving your thoughts here. Of course I could be wrong but you seem to be very selective about what you accept as evidence.

JPK

[Alek]

<insubstantial drivel deleted>



When one uses ones position at as an employee as a basis of authority, one had best make certain that one is in line with the employers wishes. If I use



You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english. Let me see if I can make it as unambiguous as possible so that even the likes of you can understand:

1) She posted her analysis using a psudonym from a private account, with no reference to her credentials, origin, or background. In english, this means she didn't use her position or authority.

2) The Scholars for 9/11 Truth linked her website to their page, presumably after her approval.

3) As soon as I pasted the 9/11 Truth link, delphi_ote obtained her identity through cross reference and began personally attacking her.

4) Taking issue with her article, and instead of countering or debunking her article in a public forum, he instead sent a private email to university authorities trying to get her in trouble.

5) We have freedom of speech in this country, which means that people have the right to express their belief, no matter how controversial or wrong.



my companies' name to spout anti-semitic/racist propaganda I will likely face



Irrelevant, ridiculous analogy.



problems with my employer as well. Comparing this to 'Stasi' is ludicrous, since the government has little to do with this issue. If she loses her job as aresult of this, she has only herself to blame.



The Stasi flourished because of a network of snitches and spies who formed a human surveillance grid. delphi_ote's behavior is typical of the slime in question. The fact that you think she may lose her job, and the fact that you think she should lose her job is more evidence of your apparent retardation, and abject ignorance as to what this country is all about. You're no better than the sniveling coward who wrote the letter.



You obviously are too naive to understand that 'Free Speech' does not mean speech without consequences.



The consequences in this case should have been a reasoned rebuttal in a public forum, not some vain attempt to tattle on the speaker. You're not bright enough to grok this.



You really aren't very good at this, are you?

[Alek]

Good morning Alek.
Please allow me to quote myself from a previous post that you seemed to have missed.

It does apear that you have a problem with the "Big Bad Government" and that seems to be driving your thoughts here. Of course I could be wrong but you seem to be very selective about what you accept as evidence.

JPK
Good morning.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere. The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Pre 9/11, Americans were polarized on civil liberties issues. The fear and hysteria subsequent to 9/11 changed all that with the passage of the Patriot Act, and now the Real ID act. Then began the consolidation of a number of US government agencies into a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

You're probably at least mostly aware of what happend in Afghanistan and what is going on in Iraq.

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my vanity.

[delphi_ote]

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere.
Names?
The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.
Proof?
The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my sanity.
You had a typo there.

[kookbreaker]

<insubstantial drivel deleted>

You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english.


This from the guy who whines that we should be nicer to him. :rolleyes:


Let me see if I can make it as unambiguous as possible so that even the likes of you can understand:

1) She posted her analysis using a psudonym from a private account, with no reference to her credentials, origin, or background. In english, this means she didn't use her position or authority.

2) The Scholars for 9/11 Truth linked her website to their page, presumably after her approval.


And that website happily points out that the article is written by "Judy Woods", PHD. Hence, her position as a professor is being used to support the arguement. She also was part of the press release

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_prweb/prweb352979_1

Sounds a bit like she tried to have it both ways. Anonymous, with authority derived from her position at the University.


3) As soon as I pasted the 9/11 Truth link, delphi_ote obtained her identity through cross reference and began personally attacking her.


Wait a second. It was you who pointed out her identity in post #104! By the time you brought it up several messages had been passed regarding the ineptness of that website's physics. You are telling lies and trying to make Delphi look like a stalker.


4) Taking issue with her article, and instead of countering or debunking her article in a public forum, he instead sent a private email to university authorities trying to get her in trouble.


WRONG! Delphi already had nailed the physics in that article is being poor (as had others).

As for the the wrongness of what she is doing, read what Delphi actually wrote instead of going off on a tantrum:


Many of the claims on this website are patently false, particularly some of the elementary physics presented. Dr. Wood seems reluctant to publish her name and profession directly on the website, but openly uses them to promote the website (as you can see clearly in this press release from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200603.../prweb352979_1 and on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.)

It seems unethical that she would use her PhD and Professor of Mechanical Engineering status to promote her writings, but not open said writings to proper peer review by hiding her name entirely on the actual documents. It also seems dishonest that she would claim to be a full professor when she is currently an assistant professor.


There are problems here. Big problems. You may understand them, but they are problems.


5) We have freedom of speech in this country, which means that people have the right to express their belief, no matter how controversial or wrong.


I'll explain it again: In the USA we have the right not to be jailed for free speech. The means that you will not go to jail for giving an opinion. That does not mean you can inflate your credentials or use your employer's cerdentials to promote personal agendas if the employer does not approve. Oh, you certainly can do it, but there will be consequences from your employer if they do not appreciate what they you are saying.

Again, you do not understand what "free speech" means. It is not freedom from consequences, especially when lies are being told.


Irrelevant, ridiculous analogy.


Nope. It is very apt. In fact, one might argue that what she has done is worse.


The Stasi flourished because of a network of snitches and spies who formed a human surveillance grid. delphi_ote's behavior is typical of the slime in question. The fact that you think she may lose her job, and the fact that you think she should lose her job is more evidence of your apparent retardation, and abject ignorance as to what this country is all about. You're no better than the sniveling coward who wrote the letter.


You are basicly saying that no one should be reporting misconduct, and if they do, they are the equivelant of secret police? Wonderful attitude you've got there. Were you a schoolyard bully as a kid?


The consequences in this case should have been a reasoned rebuttal in a public forum, not some vain attempt to tattle on the speaker. You're not bright enough to grok this.

No, you are not bright enough to grasp the consequences of ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. Get it through your head! She is not innocent in this matter! If she was, Delphi would have been told to flake off by the University. Instead, they seem to be taking this matter rather seriously.

[JPK]

Good afternoon Alek.
Good morning.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere. The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Pre 9/11, Americans were polarized on civil liberties issues. The fear and hysteria subsequent to 9/11 changed all that with the passage of the Patriot Act, and now the Real ID act. Then began the consolidation of a number of US government agencies into a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

You're probably at least mostly aware of what happend in Afghanistan and what is going on in Iraq.

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my vanity.
Thanks for the reply. I will not have time to respond until the tomorrow.
But perhaps you can state when you feel this plan was starting to take shape? When did they plant the bombs in the WTC? Were they there all along? What other buildings do you think are presently rigged to blow?
Is it safe to assume that you believe Bin Laden was working on this with these powerfull elements in the Government?

JPK

[delphi_ote]

You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english.
Hadn't noticed that the last time around. Are you being rude, or are you trying to be ban-martyred?

[WildCat]

I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.
Your "evidence" was exposed as the BS it is. Let's review:

Let's review:
1. The WTC shouldn't have fallen, it was designed to withstand the impact of a airliner. This was shown to be a gross mischaracterization.

2. The WTC couldn't have fallen only due to the planes hitting it and subsequent fires. This was shown to be false, as every single structural engineering report agrees w/ the official reasons for collapse.

3. WTC 7 was hardly dameged, but fell anyway. Shown to be false, after which you changed your tune to:

4. WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition due the fact no other steel building had collapsed due to fire. Shown to be false, as the steel portion of the Madrid tower did collapse. And the video shows what you think are "squibs" only appear after the building begins to collapse. In addition, firefighters near WTC 7 reported hearing the building beginning to collapse, and the videos and pictures show it is kinking and bending before it collapsed.

5. Seismic data shows tremors from the WTC before they collapsed. Shown to be false, using the very data you cited.

6. Shaky video that proves nothing.

In addition, you have not shown (or even offered a half-assed theory of) how the many tons of explosives necessary could have been installed and wired together w/o anyone noticing.

Just repeating that, since Alek seems to have missed it. Because, AFAIK, that was all of his evidence.

Alek, are you still there?

[Alek]

Good afternoon Alek.

Thanks for the reply. I will not have time to respond until the tomorrow.
But perhaps you can state when you feel this plan was starting to take shape? When did they plant the bombs in the WTC? Were they there all along? What other buildings do you think are presently rigged to blow?
Is it safe to assume that you believe Bin Laden was working on this with these powerfull elements in the Government?

JPK

I don't know when it started to take shape. I'm not an investigator in New York, but a mere citizen in San Diego. I'm less trying to theorize and more trying to illustrate the flaws in the official conspiracy theory involving 19 arab hijackers.

As for when they may have rigged the buildings, consider this from a man named Scott Forbes:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

Consider also that George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin was a director of Securecom, a firm which provided security not only to the WTC complex but also Dulles international airport, and United Airlines. This is documented in Loose Change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change).

As for the notion that bombs were there all along, I don't put any credence in that. A man named Peter Lance has suggested that the WTC 7 building might have been pre-wired with explosives at its construction. Lance, if I recall correctly, believes the official conspiracy theory is true, but that the government is covering up some of the details so as to absolve it of claims of negligence. He claims the nature of the tenants at the building is such that would suggest them having the ability to quickly destroy the building and its sensitive contents. The list of WTC 7 tenants included IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, SEC, and Secret Service.

I believe Lance is trying to offer up a legitimate reason for what to many appears to be a controlled demolition of the WTC 7 building.

I have no reason to believe any other buildings are presently rigged to blow. If you want me to speculate on the next "terrorist" attack, I would guess that it will be biological in nature. A biological attack would enable the government to suspend or eliminate the US constitution (as fmr. US General Tommy Franks has suggested) virtually everywhere via large scale quarantine operations.

French intelligence reported that Bin Laden received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai, UAE a few months prior to 9/11, where he allegedly met with a CIA section chief.

I tend to think Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset, much like Saddam Hussein (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html). It's worth noting that the only evidence linking him to 9/11 is the confession tape, supposedly made from a cave in Afghanistan. Many have questioned the authenticity of this tape, and it contradicts an alleged statement made by Bin Laden denying culpability for 9/11. As I pointed out earlier, Buzzy Krongard, a former high-ranking CIA executive has admitted in a London Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html) that he thinks we'd all be better off if Bin Laden remained free. Does this represent official CIA policy? I suppose a lot of Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11 would like to know.

[WildCat]

I don't know when it started to take shape. I'm not an investigator in New York, but a mere citizen in San Diego. I'm less trying to theorize and more trying to illustrate the flaws in the official conspiracy theory involving 19 arab hijackers.

As for when they may have rigged the buildings, consider this from a man named Scott Forbes:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm
Oh goody, the mysterious Scott Forbes again! Alek, is there any evidence at all this "Scott Forbes" guy actually exists/existed? Does it make sense that this is the only record of such a power-down, when tens of thousands of people worked in those buildings? Does it make sense that none of the many large banks and other financial institutions housed in the WTC buildings would tolerate a 36 hour power-down, where there would be no security? Why does no one else remember what would certainly have been a major event for the many companies working there?

I call BS on this power-down, until you have more evidence.

Consider also that George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin was a director of Securecom, a firm which provided security not only to the WTC complex but also Dulles international airport, and United Airlines. This is documented in Loose Change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change).
Ooooh, now that's what I call rock-solid evidence, pardon me while I laugh in your face.

As for the notion that bombs were there all along, I don't put any credence in that. A man named Peter Lance has suggested that the WTC 7 building might have been pre-wired with explosives at its construction. Lance, if I recall correctly, believes the official conspiracy theory is true, but that the government is covering up some of the details so as to absolve it of claims of negligence. He claims the nature of the tenants at the building is such that would suggest them having the ability to quickly destroy the building and its sensitive contents. The list of WTC 7 tenants included IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, SEC, and Secret Service.

I believe Lance is trying to offer up a legitimate reason for what to many appears to be a controlled demolition of the WTC 7 building.
A rare moment of common sense kicking in, Alek?

I have no reason to believe any other buildings are presently rigged to blow.
Nor have you yet presented any evidence that the WTC was demolished by explosives either.

If you want me to speculate on the next "terrorist" attack, I would guess that it will be biological in nature. A biological attack would enable the government to suspend or eliminate the US constitution (as fmr. US General Tommy Franks has suggested) virtually everywhere via large scale quarantine operations.
And that, of course, is something every US politician mastubates to...

French intelligence reported that Bin Laden received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai, UAE a few months prior to 9/11, where he allegedly met with a CIA section chief.

I tend to think Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset, much like Saddam Hussein (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html). It's worth noting that the only evidence linking him to 9/11 is the confession tape, supposedly made from a cave in Afghanistan. Many have questioned the authenticity of this tape, and it contradicts an alleged statement made by Bin Laden denying culpability for 9/11. As I pointed out earlier, Buzzy Krongard, a former high-ranking CIA executive has admitted in a London Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html) that he thinks we'd all be better off if Bin Laden remained free. Does this represent official CIA policy? I suppose a lot of Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11 would like to know.
Funny stuf there, Alek. funny stuff! But proof of nothing, of course.

[sesmo_k]

Hello Alek,

so by your rational, that the American Government intentionally allowed/set up the events of 9/11 to take place, would you also say that both the Spanish and British governments allowed/set up the atrocities that occurred on their soil? After all, the bombings in these countries were due to those countries involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you honestly think that so many people could be paid off to keep quiet?

Sarah

[Alek]

Hello Alek,

so by your rational, that the American Government intentionally allowed/set up the events of 9/11 to take place, would you also say that both the Spanish and British governments allowed/set up the atrocities that occurred on their soil? After all, the bombings in these countries were due to those countries involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you honestly think that so many people could be paid off to keep quiet?

Sarah

I have not researched the 3/11 nor the 7/7 bombings in Madrid and London, so I don't want to speculate on who was responsible or why.

For a number of reasons I think it is a gross oversimplification to suggest that the alleged suppression of the truth of these events is dependent on paying a lot of people off. If indeed these are false flag attacks carried out by intelligence agencies, then they are the work of highly sophisticated and resourceful individuals who would employ a minimum of assets in order to execute them.

Intelligence agencies use a number of tactics to preserve secrecy, including compartmentalization, threats, blackmail, and bribes. They also make use of human assets who are already sympathetic to the cause which is served by the operation, such that there is no conflict of interest in the minds of these people.

Perhaps the most important asset is the media, unwitting or not.

"We live in a world of communication, where perception is very often the reality. Those individuals that control the perceptions are the ones that control virtually everything." (http://www.scl.cc/article.php?id=31)

If the media repeats the same lie over and over, for many people it creates the perception of truth. In this context, it is extremely difficult for whistleblowers or alternate accounts to come forward. When they do, their credibility is weighed, if only subconsciously, against the supreme credibility of the media and often disparaged.

I suspect this is the paramount reason for why people tend to believe big lies. It is less a function of keeping secrets from being revealed, and more a function of keeping revealed secrets from being believed.

“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf