# Physics prof. discusses WTC collapse



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

http://filmstripinternational.com/filmstrips.php?filmstrip=jones2


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That stuff isn't too new. My question is--if the collapse was caused by explosives, why would explosives have been placed as well? If you were trying to create an incident, I would assume that airplanes crashing into towers would suffice.

Also, if you were trying to "create" an incident that would require the buildings to collapse completely, why bother blowing them up neatly at all? Why not just create a sloppy building collapse that would kill even more people and destroy even more property?

Finally, a conspiracy of this magnitude would require players in both parties to bring it to fruition, considering the length of time required for all of this to hatch. 

Is that what you're suggesting, or are you just linking up this old info and standing back?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm so disgusted by these consipiracy theories that I want to puke.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

These theories are so dumb. They start with a conclusion, then they'll use whatever "evidence" they can to support it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Around six months after the events, the science of the collapse was examined closely in television shows, on public television. These were done much better, and in much more detail. Not just, "it doesn't look like this could happen to me" which is waht this 'scientist' keeps saying. "How could this happen?"

I watched the second plane fly into the building on live television on September 11, 2001. I watched the news while the buildings burned, and then collapsed.

I could understand if these conspiracy theories surfaced 50 years from now, but anyone who says, in a lecture, "Muslims say it wasn't Bin Laden" instead of playing the tapes where Bin Laden clearly can't believe his good luck that the buildings burned and fell should lose their tenure in a heartbeat. As Bugs would say, "What a maroon!"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JW, your line about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof applies very well to the conspiracy world where absence of proof and abundance of speculation is the norm. If there's a non-zero chance, then spread the word! A very narrow look at 'facts' and a highly biased connecting of the carefully selected dots. Some writers have made long careers of this. Thankfully the really ugly conspiracies (anti-Semitic ones) had very short lives in this part of the world. Or, at least, people have kept quiet about those feelings while they build on the foundation of their hatred.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I was pretty suspicious of these wingnuts at first, but now that they've added the Police song, it gives it a whole new level of credibility that I never thought possible.

Now I truly believe *was* explosives carrying terrorists that worked feverishly for months to cooridinate an elite demolitions team to drill, wire and place explosives strategically on every floor of several Government-owned buildings AND then fly airplanes into them!


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

Thanks for that video. Interesting stuff. I have felt for a long time that the whole 9/11 / Afghanistan Invasion / Iraq War just doesn't add up and that there has to be lots more to it than we're being told. I don't believe for a second the story is as simple as what the US administration is telling us.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

BYU structural engineering profs dipute his analysis:
Wikipedia:
*Critics*

Some critics have claimed that Jones' analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they contend are quotes selective edited from Bill Manning [4]and Stephen Gregory.
A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

makes one wonder why WTC 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by a plane
and it collapsed so neatly


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> makes one wonder why WTC 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by a plane
> and it collapsed so neatly


Also makes one wonder how many of these advocates really think the conspiracy involves 'Zionist' theories, like the theories that initially emerged, but have since learned how to handle the PR better. What's your opinion?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Now Beej is trying to discredit by association - shame on you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Also makes one wonder how many of these advocates really think the conspiracy involves 'Zionist' theories, like the theories that initially emerged, but have since learned how to handle the PR better. What's your opinion?


I dunno why don't you listen to Silverstein's original comments;
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

and finally Silverstein Properties responds 2 years later
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm


> Paul Joseph Watson | January 5 2006
> 
> Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges
> Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It really DOES NOT make me wonder why the building not hit by a plane collapsed so neatly. Again, even if the entire 9/11 incident was created as a massive PR stunt, then collapsing that building would have been unnecessary after the planes had done their initial damage. I can't imagaine the amount of planning it would have taken to ensure that Jihadists hit the buildings with airplanes while American co-conspirators arranged the planting of thermite charges to ensure that the buildings were finished off. Wouldn't airplanes crashing into towers be ENOUGH?

That the co-conspirators maintained their silence instead of telling Harper's or Jerry Springer is also nothing short of amazing.

This conspiracy nonsense is devolving into crazy talk, folks.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

I found an excellent documentary about the collapse and the conspiracy that I would recommend everyone watch. They do raise some very good points, and they back up their theories with scientific research and reasoning.

Loose Change.

Even if you don't believe the theories it has some excellent footage in it that some of you perhaps missed. Very interesting stuff.

Trev


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now Beej is trying to discredit by association - shame on you.


Look around at the conspiracy theories. Some are thinly veiled racism. Some are just your run-of-mill conspiracy people with some sort of political axe to grind. Some are honestly curious and skeptical people. Read the post again:

...
Also makes one wonder how many of these advocates really think the conspiracy involves 'Zionist' theories, like the theories that initially emerged, but have since learned how to handle the PR better. What's your opinion?
...

Don't you wonder how many? There were a lot in the early stages of this development (2001-2003). I'm not discrediting by association, I want people who are putting all this 'analytical' rigour into the subject to dig a little deeper about what they advocate. Shame on you for attempting to reduce it to 'discredit by association'. You are smarter than that, I think. These conspiracies discredit themselves (as per usual) but *some* of the advocates may be pushing something else, just like some used to. Or maybe those vicious racists just abandoned the field and stopped pushing their ideas and have nothing to do with a now purely rational and honest pursuit.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I dunno why don't you listen to Silverstein's original comments;


I'm asking for your opinion.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> ...Wouldn't airplanes crashing into towers be ENOUGH?


Actually no, that wouldn't be enough. Those buildings were designed to take a direct hit from an airplane, and the US government's official explanation is that the buildings fell as a result of the fires. Even the fire would not have been enought to bring down buildings such as the WTC, and in such a short time frame. Less than an hour of burning to completely collapse those buildings? Impossible, most of the jet fuel burned off outside of the building in the initial impact. The fires inside would not have burned hot enough to sufficiently impact the massive amounts of steel in that building to bring it down. Before the WTC, how many steel-framed buildings collapsed because of fire? Zero. And there were plenty of sky scrapers that had fires more intense than those at WTC AND that were spread out over more floors AND burned for much much longer, yet those survived. It just doesn't add up, and the government isn't willing to answer the hard questions as to why.

And what of WTC 7? The official explanation was it was hit with debris from the impacts to the other towers and it started a fire in the building. It was also constructed with the same steel-frame and materials as the other two yet it fell because of a fire? Seems kind of fishy to me. Nevermind the fact that it housed offices of the CIA and NSA. And why did it fall so perfectly? If it was possible for a fire to bring it down, it would have had to burn through all of its support columns evenly for it to fall straight down, otherwise it would have tipped to one side.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury[u said:


> ]It really DOES NOT make me wonder why the building not hit by a plane collapsed so neatly.[/u] Again, even if the entire 9/11 incident was created as a massive PR stunt, then collapsing that building would have been unnecessary after the planes had done their initial damage. I can't imagaine the amount of planning it would have taken to ensure that Jihadists hit the buildings with airplanes while American co-conspirators arranged the planting of thermite charges to ensure that the buildings were finished off. Wouldn't airplanes crashing into towers be ENOUGH?
> 
> That the co-conspirators maintained their silence instead of telling Harper's or Jerry Springer is also nothing short of amazing.
> 
> This conspiracy nonsense is devolving into crazy talk, folks.


please explain the "neat" collapse of WTC 7 which was NEVER hit by any plane


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Wow. Okay. I could spend days watching one of these conspiracy movies and finding all the faulty reasoning, but I've done it once already and I've only got one life, so here's a little experiment...

Watch this (it's short), and just let me know what you think. Then I'll let you know what I think.

http://gprime.net/flash.php/911pentagonstrikeconspiracy


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> I'm asking for your opinion.


my opinion is that Silverstein has a lot of explaining to do
especially after making that statement which he is now trying to explain away


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> my opinion is that Silverstein has a lot of explaining to do
> especially after making that statement which he is now trying to explain away


Thank you, but not quite the topic I was asking about.

What is your opinion of who organised the 9/11 crashes and, if you are of a certain school of thought, building collapses?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JasonWood: I watched that video. Now check the web site that explains that photos discrediting airplanes crashing into the Pentagon are actually being supplied by government agents--who will later provide photos to discredit all conspiracists (including conspiracists who may actually be right!)

Get your head around that!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Macfury said:


> JasonWood: I watched that video. Now check the web site that explains that photos discrediting airplanes crashing into the Pentagon are actually being supplied by government agents--who will later provide photos to discredit all conspiracists (including conspiracists who may actually be right!)
> 
> Get your head around that!
> 
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html


Yep, there's some good stuff there. I guess nobody's going to support the video since they already know I'm standing by to blast it into the water. Here's my original response as posted to the Humanist Association of Canada email list:

These conspiracy theories reminds me of the arguments for intelligent 
design. They start with a preconception and they'll do anything to 
find supporting arguments. We're supposed to be better than that.

Listen, just because we don't like the Bush administration, doesn't
mean we can give up our cherished rationality and skepticism when 
faced with wild conspiracy theories. A large proportion of the flaws 
in these arguments are so obvious that you don't even need to do much 
research to show their absurdity.

First, the government is way too large and incompetent to pull off a 
coverup of this magnitude - furthermore, if they had done this 
elaborate conspiracy, they would have made bloody sure it looked to 
average people as though a plane hit!!

Read/watch this stuff with brain in "on" mode. It is 90% pure 
nonsense. It relies on many assumptions and non-expert testimony.

Watch the video again with volume off, since it's just dramatic music 
intended to appeal to your emotions anyway.

"In reality, a Boeing 737 was never found"
Irrelevant. Any debris inside the pentagon would have been destroyed 
by the fire. There are pictures clearly showing debris out on the lawn, 
and parts (landing gear in particular), inside.

Undamaged cable spools.
Irrelevant. They are only a few feet tall and the airplane fuselage 
is narrow enough that it could easily get past these items left out 
on the lawn, even if it is 2" from the ground as they say.

Intact windows
Irrelevant. Should we surprised that parts of the pentagon that 
didn't have serious structural damage still have windows??? Why does 
this make it more likely that it was a missle???

People believed they saw a missile or commuter plane.
This is interesting, but hardly convincing. People are not used to 
having large aircraft fly past them at 400-530MPH. They were so vague 
that clearly it happened to fast for them to get a good look at it.

"it just went pfff"
How does this guy know what it's supposed to sound like. Is a missile 
more likely to go "pfff" than a plane? Again, the testimony is from 
a non-expert, and it doesn't seem to make one scenario any more 
likely than another.

"It sounded like a missile"
Not very many people have actually heard a missile fly past them, so 
I hardly see how some guy saying this has ANY credibility. This is 
probably the first time ANYONE has heard a plane go past them at 
400-530MPH. I don't doubt that it sounded like a missile!

"Buildings don't eat planes"
This person is not an expert. The WTC's didn't seem to have much 
trouble "eating" planes.

"A bomb had gone off"
Yeah - the plane practically was a bomb. It had a full tank of jet 
fuel and it hit a building with 24" reinforced concrete walls. I bet 
it was like a bomb went off.

"One thing that's confusing - if it came in the way you described, at 
an angle, then why are not the wings outside. I mean, the wings would 
have shorn off. The tale would have shorn off."
This person is a reporter. He is not an engineer and is in no 
position to provide expert testimony on what the wings "would" have 
done in these circumstances. Notice that there don't seem to be many 
engineers being quoted in these conspiracy tales.

"Actually, there's considerable evidence of an aircraft outside of 
the E-ring, it's just not very visible".
Indeed. There were many small parts found outside the pentagon. Some 
of them were shown in the movie. There are many other pictures on the 
web, including ones showing the airline's markings (one conspiracy 
web site has overlayed this part with a poorly colour-balanced and 
blurry image of their logo, trying to assert that the colours are 
off... what bull****).

"Airplane crashes leave wreckage"
This is just dumb, considering the picture they show to make their 
next point...

"They mess up the ground"
I guess it didn't hit the ground then... duh?
Funny though that they make this point by showing a crash where 
there's nothing left of the airplane except the cockpit. The rest has 
burnt to the point where it is just a black mark on the ground. 
Surely in an enclosed space, the plane was far more likely to have 
been disintegrated in the ensuing fire and explosions. It should not 
surprise us that there are not large identifiable pieces of aircraft 
found here.

ATC's thought it had to have been a military plane because it was 
moving around so much.
Probably because he was such a lousy pilot. It's unlikely that a real 
plane had ever been maneuvered by someone with so little experience 
and will to survive!

"he could hardly fly at all"
This instructor is used to teaching people who aspired to be real 
pilots. This guy just wanted to fly a jet into a building. He didn't 
have to be a star pupil.

Tapes confiscated and never released.
I honestly don't know about this one, but let me ask you this... why 
did they release the pentagon security camera imagery which failed to 
show an airplane if they were going to hide imagery?

Okay, now we get into the really obvious stuff.

People did board that flight and they certainly didn't come home! If 
this really happened, then American Airlines had to be in on it. That 
is of course unless they hijacked the plane, brought it below radar, 
shot it down the plane with some kind of "ray gun" so as not to leave 
any wreckage, then fire a missile into the pentagon. Crap... you 
might as well just fly the plane into the building yourself!


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

The point is that these conspiracy theories develop because people fail to think critically. That's one of the reasons I strongly feel that CRITICAL THINKING should be a mandatory component of high school education.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jasonwood said:


> The point is that these conspiracy theories develop because people fail to think critically. That's one of the reasons I strongly feel that CRITICAL THINKING should be a mandatory component of high school education.


and just how does "critical thinking" explain;
1. Silverstein's comment; "we decided to 'pull' the building [WTC 7]"
2. Why did WTC 7 fall when it wasn't hit by an aircraft?

My "critical thinking" explains it very easily.
The building was purposely demolished.
And if so, that leads me to question the official story of "9/11"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> My "critical thinking" explains it very easily.


Your 'critical thinking' and the quality thereof is established. So what is your opinion of who organised this?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> Yep, there's some good stuff there. I guess nobody's going to support the video since they already know I'm standing by to blast it into the water.


JW, give up. The conspiracists will always advance something that they perceive as pivotal until someone shoots it down. They will then invent more because they have a political axe to grind, not a rational one. Some even have a racist axe to grind. Faith versus rationality; these folks are faith-based skeptics. 

Here's some fun: the U.S. Dems have made themselves irrelevant for many reasons yet they continue to get 45%+ of the vote. They clearly control voting outcomes in an attempt to artificially maintain relevance for a party that gave Bush the war power and later decided that maybe they'd been a little spineless. Clearly Dem votes are in question because of this conspiracy and there is much 'evidence'. The ability of this directionless party to get so many votes leaves many questions unanswered in a flawed voting system. Implication: make up whatever you want because it is not logic it is personal politics. Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. Oh and, by the way, the Alpha Centauri pencil , now understood as an avatar of the FSM, controls our minds.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction and the US government has been known to do some pretty harebrained operations.

I'll advance your Dems theory by adding that the Dems and the Cons are just there to placate humans while the corporations are the ones who really control the world... (insert Beejicon here)....

And no I don't think that the US blew up it's own building but the Neocons sure have used it to their advantage.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Your 'critical thinking' and the quality thereof is established. So what is your opinion of who organised this?


what do you think of WTC 7 falling without being hit by a plane and Silverstein's comment on "pull the building?"


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Beej said:


> Your 'critical thinking' and the quality thereof is established. So what is your opinion of who organised this?


Ya really. You have to go somewhere with this. Can't just cry conspiracy without going down the path.

Right now it sounds like there are two options.

1) Silverstein meant to say "pull out" to indicate that the fire fighters should leave the building before it collapsed. He doesn't talk about 

2) There was a controlled demolition of the building

Now with #1, the story is over. It's not too difficult to believe. The fact (if it is a fact), that he doesn't talk about it much now, is meaningless. He probably enjoys watching these theories develop!

Now think about what #2 implies. Silverstein knew the twin towers were going to be attacked, but that wasn't enough, so he hired a demolition to plant explosives throughout building 7 to make it even more devastating? And just just any demolition crew. These people would have to be completely NUTS (for either religious or psychological reasons), and would have to appear as ordinary workers in the building. It just defies any sort of believability. WHY???????


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

$500 million dollars?
if the WTC were left to only be attacked by planes they would be much more difficult to demolish afterwards - this way it was done in one fell swoop


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> $500 million dollars?
> if the WTC were left to only be attacked by planes they would be much more difficult to demolish afterwards - this way it was done in one fell swoop


What are you saying??? That Silverstein had advance notice of the attack? Do you think he's so insane as to be a party in the death of thousands for money?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jasonwood said:


> Do you think he's so insane as to be a party in the death of thousands for money?


He would not be the first


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Beej said:


> JW, give up. The conspiracists will always advance something that they perceive as pivotal until someone shoots it down. They will then invent more because they have a political axe to grind, not a rational one. Some even have a racist axe to grind. Faith versus rationality; these folks are faith-based skeptics.


I disagree. It's imperative that we fight for reason and rationality.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> He would not be the first


Who else is there?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good letter, Jasonwood. I didn't mean to imply you believed that rock video examining the Pentagon crash.

>> what do you think of WTC 7 falling without being hit by a 
>> plane and Silverstein's comment on "pull the building?"

Clearly Silverstein wanted to destroy that expensive structure despite it being intact and ready to rent because he is a Republican and thought--"I can help my president by knocking this puppy down too." 

He later kicked over a display of tins at a nearby grocery store believed by the general public to have fallen as a result of vibrations caused by the impact of the towers. Just prior to the display falling over, Silverstein was heard by a stockboy to have muttered: "Pull the tins."


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Occam's Razor, people.

The arguments basically come down to "I don't think it could possibly happen the way it did.. therefore I must construct a wildly complicated thesis involving many unprovable and hitherto unknown outside influences to account for my not understanding how it did."

The essence is that once an event has happened, the billions upon billions of chance effects and possible alternative outcomes that lead up to it are collapsed to one, because that is what happened. 

When you flip a coin, and it spins 5.5x about its axis on the tabletop, and then falls heads-up - you could say "it is a billion to one chance that it would behave in just that way. You cannot prove why it didn't spin 6 times, or land tails up, therefore it is so improbable that it would happen just that way as to be impossible. Therefore, there must have been an outside influence (Hand of God, alien intervention, manipulation of magnetic waves from an unmarked van unaccountably parked outside at that moment) 

Arguing from the point of improbability on past events is a sucker's game.
No matter how improbable or unpredictable, the moment the coin landed, all other possibilities were obsoleted and one outcome became 100% probable.
Consider the improbability of one specific sperm fertilizing one specific egg on a particular moment. Yet here I am, proof that the improbable HAD to have happened, and therefore is no longer improbable at all but a certainty.

The minute you say "It wouldn't have happened the way it did" you lose all credibility.

Large jetliner hits tall building, which has never happened at this magnitude in the history of the world, the building falls down. Predictible, maybe. Surprising, given existing assumptions about building construction without empirical evidence, maybe. Just like the Titanic who couldnt be sunk. 

I don't think anyone has to look for secret conspiracies, planning and planting of devices years and decades in advance, or any other agendas.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jasonwood said:


> Who else is there?


Jason, if you are to argue against a conspiracy, you have to take on the argument proposed. 
Do you really want me to start naming people who have profited from death and destruction? I'd have to start at the beginning of humankind...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Large jetliner hits tall building, which has never happened at this magnitude in the history of the world, the building falls down. Predictible, maybe. Surprising, given existing assumptions about building construction without empirical evidence, maybe. Just like the Titanic who couldnt be sunk.
> 
> I don't think anyone has to look for secret conspiracies, planning and planting of devices years and decades in advance, or any other agendas.


still doesn't explain the magical fall of WTC 7 (never hit by plane) and Silverstein's comment "we had to pull it"

sometimes 1 + 1 actually does equal 2

and i'm not talking about coin flipping or egg fertilization
just that a building NOT impacted by an airplane fell like a house of cards AND the owner uses a word that means "implosion" in the demolition crowd

and once you realize that WTC 7 was a planned demolition how far of a stretch is is that other buildings could have demolished as well?


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jason, if you are to argue against a conspiracy, you have to take on the argument proposed.
> Do you really want me to start naming people who have profited from death and destruction? I'd have to start at the beginning of humankind...


As far as taking on the argument proposed, I think I did do that. If the building was demolished, explosives would have had to have been planted, meaning Silverstein had advance notice and hired a demolition crew to plant the explosives. I'm trying to get someone to admit that that's where the argument goes, or give me another option.

As for profit from death and destruction, I actually would like you to go through a few examples from recent history that are comparable to this (thousands of lives in a developed nation). I'm not presupposing that your argument fails, I just can't think of an example that is comparable. It's simply a matter of interest.

Besides, I wonder what percentage of the insurance payout was for building 7. Could it possibly be worthy of an elaborate additional conspiracy which people would be more likely to question (as is happening). Does that make sense???


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

WTC 7 is the "thin edge of the wedge"
first we start with what is the easiest to prove and building 7 is a slam dunk, especially taking Silverstein;s video recorded comments in the equation

(if you don't believe WTC 7 was taken down on purpose, you'll never even start to believe anything different about WTC 1 and 2)

then if WTC 7 was taken down by demolition, we then start to ask about WTC 1 and 2


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> then if WTC 7 was taken down by demolition...



LOL. I don't think we're anywhere near that conclusion yet. You haven't addressed any of my questions!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jasonwood said:


> LOL. I don't think we're anywhere near that conclusion yet. You haven't addressed any of my questions!


what do you think Silverstein meant by; 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> what do you think Silverstein meant by;
> 
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv


I shouldn't even entertain this since you're not addressing any of my questions, but here we go.

If you start with the presupposition that "pull" means "blow it up" or "evacuate the building", the clip makes equal sense both ways.

So you have to turn to reason to decide which is more likely.

If this was an elaborate conspiracy, he wouldn't admit to it so blatantly in an interview! I mean, he knew this was for TV!

What makes more sense?

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life [we don't want to risk losing more], maybe the smartest thing to do is to "pull [out]", and they made the decision to "pull [out]", and [soon after] we watched the building collapse.

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to [blow it up using the explosive I planted last month], and they [The Fire Department, upon finding out I had explosives there for just such an occasion] made the decision to [blow up the building], and we watched the building collapse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But you can see the difficulty in arguing with a conspiracist. Because you can't--with 100% certainty--decide what it is that Silverstein meant, you are being asked to accept--with near certainty--that he meant he was going to demolish the building with explosives.

After that we have a chaos of conspiro-babble that begins with Silverstein demolishing all of the towers and ends heaven knows where?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Bah!!!

The US government could do a lot to dispell any questions or doubts by being a little bit more open with the facts. After like what... 43 years after Kennedy got assassinated there are still more conspiracy theories, questions and doubts floating around... you really think they don't know who did it? BS... I don't believe it for a minute! 

They "find and convict" other murderers and criminals quite well these days thank you very much... even sometimes after years of a case being "cold". New techniques in forensics etc... just tell the public who did what and end the speculation.

But that's the easy answer.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Dreambird said:


> Bah!!!
> 
> The US government could do a lot to dispell any questions or doubts by being a little bit more open with the facts.


Interesting point, worth contemplating.

Even the Roswell files were only declassified a couple years ago.

I think they just enjoy watching people develop these wild theories.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Elvis is alive! No matter what you do, some people will believe.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Elvis is alive! No matter what you do, some people will believe.


Depends on your frame of reverence. If you told me that in 1968,yes he was. Now, I'm not so sure....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Depends on your frame of reverence. If you told me that in 1968,yes he was. Now, I'm not so sure....


The question is: should the 'Stones still be touring?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: If you accept that Elvis was alive in 1968 it's the thin edge of the wedge. You see, showing that Elvis was alive in 1968 is the easiest to prove. If you can accept that, you can accept that he is still alive today.

About the U.S. government being more forthcoming--it would only be accepted as "forthcoming" if the answer is sufficently bizarre to satisfy some conspiracists. Even then, others would argue that the "forthcoming answer" was a ruse to take researchers off the trail of something: a) more bizarre, or b) more benign.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I first heard the claims that the buildings should have been able to (and were designed to) withstand plane crashes around December 2001. What the early-70s hypothetical scenarios didn't include, though, were considerations of what would happen if fully loaded, fully fueled passenger jets were driven into them at full throttle. Accident scenarios would have been much less radical than that. IIRC, they were also based on smaller planes than those that crashed on 9/11. 

So that was one part of the conspiracy theories that always seemed easy to dismiss: the full fuel loads started uncontrollable fires that caused the structural steel to buckle, sending the weight of the top floors crashing onto the lower floors. Perhaps not the expected result, but not overly surprising either.

Then there's WTC 7. Without knowing the detailed geography of the site, but knowing that these were not simply concrete buildings planted in solid ground but rather a complex of elaborate tunnels and structures more or less floating on landfill, itself piled onto riverbed, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that the collapse of the two tallest (and probably largest) office buildings in the world would have created serious instability for surrounding buildings. 

Personally, I don't raise my eyebrows over WTC 7 collapsing, so much as I marvel that other nearby buildings weren't rendered hopelessly unstable.

Of course, just accepting that the planes were enough to do all the damage doesn't preclude conspiracies. The only conspiracy scenario I've heard that's believable to me is that the Administration had enough information to prevent the hijackings, but opted to let them happen in order to give it a _casus belli_ for its already planned adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Even if that relatively simple theory is true, it would make the Bush Administration complicit in an unspeakable crime. And it's a huge leap from there to suggest that Bush and his friends were actively involved in planning and executing the whole thing, and that Osama bin Laden simply took credit because he was delighted to be held responsible for such a thing. Not a leap I'm ready to make, even though my opinion of Bush is about as low as it can be.

In fact, even the leap from the official explanation ("didn't have enough timely information to stop it") to "had the information but chose not to act" is a pretty serious one. Although I think this president is a dangerously incompetent warmonger, I'm not convinced it's necessary to make even that leap to explain events from 9/11 onward.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There was also the fact that although many of those girders were going to be sheathed with asbestos fire protection, they were stopped from doing so to suit emerging environmental regulations.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

People seem to forget that the laws of gravity apply in the case of the WTC structures.

Once the floors where the fires were the worse starting becoming unstable, everything on top of them fell down also. It was not the fire alone that destroyed the towers, but the impact of each floor above falling down on the floors below them.

You can see this on actual video of the towers collapsing, the same video that was played over and over for the first few days after the tragedy. They stopped playing it repeatedly after people started calling the news organizations and saying that was enough, but it shows up in the real documentaries about the event.

At first the top floors collapse slowly. As the plane-impact floors collapse, and the weight above them drops down, each floor collapsing speeds up until the buildings almost race to collapse going downward.

There is no rocket science here. Just Newtonian.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*check out this website on WTC*

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
does a good explanation.
The other stuff is conspiracy bunk from people with time on their hands.
Geez they are probably the same people who think we didn't land on the moon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I actually met an old guy who insisted there was no moon landing, though I suspect his protest revolved around the idea that man was not meant to go to the moon, therefore man COULD NOT go to the moon.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

TrevX said:


> I found an excellent documentary about the collapse and the conspiracy that I would recommend everyone watch. They do raise some very good points, and they back up their theories with scientific research and reasoning.
> 
> Loose Change.
> 
> ...


I just finished watching this. Guys.. it's something that will make you wonder.. if anything else.

After this.. I just don't know what to think.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

I'm not impressed. With creative thinking, taking facts and stringing them together, I could make it look like Mickey Mouse killed JFK.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ever see the video that makes it look like the Three Stooges killed JFK?

I watched some of the video but it isn't very convincing. That they would worry enough about the life of the mayor of L.A. to jeopardize such a supposed plan? Holding drills for one eventuality doesn't mean the attack was planned. How many other drills were held at the Pentagon? If they held fire drills does that mean future fires are arson?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JCCanuck said:


> I'm not impressed. With creative thinking, taking facts and stringing them together, I could make it look like Mickey Mouse killed JFK.


well, it sure as hell wasn't Oswald
proof: "magic bullet"


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> well, it sure as hell wasn't Oswald
> proof: "magic bullet"


Sorry! But the magic bullet is conjured up by the conspiracists including other distorted facts. One good site is this...http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm.
I find people and especially the media to take misleading info and use that as "proof". In otherwards, "My friend/book/show etc. says this happened so it must be true". Everything, the web, books whatever must be taken with a grain of salt. 
Heck even the website I had just listed here! But it sure as hell makes more sense than the conspiracy theories.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

at one time real doctors were paid to say cigarettes are ok


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>> at one time real doctors were paid to say cigarettes are ok

Well, there's the missing piece of information that makes the demolition of Building 7 and the secret behind JFK's assassination so much easier to accept.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> at one time real doctors were paid to say cigarettes are ok


Maybe some doctors were paid (and a very small percentage at that too) but that's a silly reponse to this JFK topic.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Don't you just love when people change the topic as soon as they realize they haven't a leg to stand on? First 9/11, then JFK, now Doctors from 50 years ago... what's next?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Jason, you have to be careful with your path of logic. A few years ago eye doctors where saying that certain procedures where safe, now these same doctors are saying that the new procedures are safe and the old ones were not so safe... (sorry soonmocket if you are reading this).


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jason, you have to be careful with your path of logic. A few years ago eye doctors where saying that certain procedures where safe, now these same doctors are saying that the new procedures are safe and the old ones were not so safe... (sorry soonmocket if you are reading this).


I agree with both jasonwood and you but we are talking about multi-complex conspiracies stories not basic medical procedures. Liver and heart transplants were risky years ago and now are standard procedure. The JFK stories and others have evolved into complex theories based on many facts some untrue or distorted. 
The cigarette companies I do agree have done many underhanded stuff for example. But that is so obvious.

9/11, what I find amazing is that the US spent billions if not trillions on Star Wars technology, high-tech soldiers and whatnot yet got caught with their pants down on a really simple plan to ram buildings with passenger planes by terrorists.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jason, you have to be careful with your path of logic. A few years ago eye doctors where saying that certain procedures where safe, now these same doctors are saying that the new procedures are safe and the old ones were not so safe... (sorry soonmocket if you are reading this).


I didn't mean to imply that scientists are always right, and anybody who disagrees is always wrong... if that's what you're implying.

One of the great things about science is, if applied properly, it is always open to new information. Science makes decisions based on the information available NOW, subject to change as new information is discovered.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course the relative safety of medical procedures changes--as do the procedures themselves, the drugs, the instruments, the training and the doctors themselves. It doesn't support conspiracies.

But I love faulty cause-effect reasoning like this:

"Ever notice that after getting corrective glasses, people's vision seems to get worse?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Of course the relative safety of medical procedures changes--as do the procedures themselves, the drugs, the instruments, the training and the doctors themselves. It doesn't support conspiracies.


The relative safety does change but the statements from the doctors are the same and they are quick to dismiss what they once sold as safe....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JCCanuck said:


> Maybe some doctors were paid (and a very small percentage at that too) but that's a silly reponse to this JFK topic.


the point was, as several have missed, that money can buy many things including opinions of "experts"


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the point was, as several have missed, that money can buy many things including opinions of "experts"


Unfortunately your're right there!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

For a beer, I'll agree to that...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>>they are quick to dismiss what they once sold as safe....

I would hope they would be quick about it. 

They are also quick to defend procedures that have been perceived as safe and still are.

And yes, experts can be bought for a very cheap price--sometimes as cheap as a certain degree of fame they achieve when they support conspiracist-wacko theories.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> >>they are quick to dismiss what they once sold as safe....
> 
> I would hope they would be quick about it.
> 
> ...



big fat cheques from the "powers that be" have a lot more influence on experts' opinions than the 15 minutes of fame afforded to conspiracy theorists

who has more at stake?
those that wish to cover up or those that wish to expose?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> big fat cheques from the "powers that be" have a lot more influence on experts' opinions than the 15 minutes of fame afforded to conspiracy theorists
> 
> who has more at stake?
> those that wish to cover up or those that wish to expose?


Or those that wish to cling to their conspiracy beliefs. The true believers always have more at stake.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just how many "big fat cheques" do you suppose it would take to create a conspiracy of the size you're implying? The enormous paper trail would be staggering. 

I'm with Beej. The "true believer" always has more at stake. Putting a flawed belief system out of its misery is extremely painful to the believer.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Anything has financial interests involved, that doesn't mean 'cause'. Follow the conspiracy advocate's politics to see real causality at work.

Climate Change -- nuclear, renewables, etc. are all benefiting and supporting favourable research. Doesn't mean the 'caused' warming or the scientific results.

Earthquake -- blanket manufacturers generally do well. Conspiracy!

Looney threads -- Check out the ads; they must be behind this.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

i know this is kind of late.


but all you people and your "the plane was a bomb, it was loaded with jet fuel"

first of all. i've seen an empty water cooler container melt and blow a ceiling tile off in class because it had jet fuel vapour in it. 


but i do believe the jet fuel used in planes are designed not to make explosions. engineers are not dumb folks. they know that crashes happen. and they KNOW that two 100ft. wings loaded with fuel are capable of a lot. but i'm sorry, how is crashing into a building any different from any other crash in terms of blowing up?

when was the last time a plane BLEW UP. let alone was even capable of flattening a 1400ft. high building? and then melting it down to it's base? i'm sorry where was the explosion in the pentagon? where was the explosion from the plane that was shot down? oops. i mean the one that magically fell. nothing to do with it's destination. 


EDIT: btw, even if the jet fuel was explosive it would have all been expended in seconds. how was the fire perpetuated? metals? yes a metal is fuel also, but how long does it take for a metal to ignite? and for the flames to continue on for days? all just from the one jet? yea. good one. 


yea i don't think so. Jet fuel is designed in a special way, so that when it is released in a crash, it clumps together into jelly blobs so it doesn't spray out a cloud of death. yea. 



and don't gimme that b.s. about think that it's absurd that anyone would do this? give me a break. America let their own people die before so that they had reason to go to war. 


december 7, 1941.

it's counterfactual history. if pearl harbour never happened. the U.S. would not have entered WW2. that's why roosevelt let it happen. think critically. don't just listen to what logic and reason makes you believe. logic is a common way for a seemingly smart person to shut up a seemingly less smart person.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

gnatsum said:


> yea i don't think so. Jet fuel is designed in a special way, so that when it is released in a crash, it clumps together into jelly blobs so it doesn't spray out a cloud of death. yea.


That's only partially true. Jet fuel like that exists, but not commonly used. Its costs are a lot more expensively relative to traditional jet fuel. With so many planes, big and small, out there, only a handful of them are filled with that kind of NASA developed fuel.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

Vexel said:


> I just finished watching this. Guys.. it's something that will make you wonder.. if anything else.
> 
> After this.. I just don't know what to think.


This is a fascinating thread ... alas, I couldn't download this for some reason. Perhaps my OS 9...?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

ComputerIdiot said:


> This is a fascinating thread ... alas, I couldn't download this for some reason. Perhaps my OS 9...?


Unfortunately.. it's been about 3 years since I've even used Classic Mode let alone OS9. I'm not even sure where to start. There are plenty of people on the board that use OS9, maybe they can offer assistance. 

Might be a good idea to post in the Troubleshooting Forum detailing everything about your situation. Including your Specs.. and the link to the video.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>> think critically. don't just listen to what logic and reason makes you believe.

gnatsum, I wouldn't even know where to begin dissecting that "gel" of mixed-up messages you posted. Suffice it to say that statements like the one above won't get you much of an audience. Thinking critically IS using logic. Only misapplied logic could get someone to the confused state of many of these posts.

One interesting point. In one of the badly produced 9/11 "net-umentaries" linked here, there's reference to the U.S. government testing a remote-controlled jetliner as though it were some big secret. I remember this appearing on the news because they were testing the special fuel that would supposedly turn to a gel, preventing a big fire. That plane blew up real good. A friend of mine had invested heavily in the stock of the company that developed the formula--I think it was called Val-Can Industries--which went sour the following morning.

Also, anyone remember the fake documentary produced by the BBC that described U.S. bases on the moon and Mars, and referred to hundreds of kidnap victims taken there to colonize these bases? Even with heavy disclaimers and despite repeated denials by the producers and the BBC, conspiracists supported the documentary as truth. After much publicity, the docs were re-run in Canada and the U.S. with on-screen disclaimers, where it convinced thousands more who used their "crtical thinking" to accept the documentary's patently false claims

Logic, however, went out the window.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh, and the idea that Roosevelet let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour as a cause for entry into WWII. I ask the same question others have asked about the WTC--why let the Japanese virtually destroy your naval power in the Pacific as a pretext to entry into the war? One or two ships would have sufficed as did the Maine in the Spanish-American War.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Oh, and the idea that Roosevelet let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour as a cause for entry into WWII. I ask the same question others have asked about the WTC--why let the Japanese virtually destroy your naval power in the Pacific as a pretext to entry into the war? One or two ships would have sufficed as did the Maine in the Spanish-American War.


Curiously US aircraft carriers were not at Pearl Harbour.
The sea war in the Aisan theatre was won on the backs of aircraft carriers.
Battleships were already outmoded and practically useless, except to soften up enemy coastal positions in preparation of troop assault.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacSpectrum--that's another piece of out-of-context info. Do you know WHY any of the ships were placed where they happened to be, prior to the Pearl Harbor attack? Read your history books.

(I'll bet Roosevelt took out a large insurance policy on some of those ships on November 30th--and that the policy INCLUDED damage caused by attacks by Japanese aircraft.)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

gnatsum said:


> when was the last time a plane BLEW UP. let alone was even capable of flattening a 1400ft. high building? and then melting it down to it's base?


Sample size would be the problem here. When was the first, last and only time a fully fuelled passenger jet slammed into a 1400-ft building at full throttle? Sept. 11, 2001. Sample size = 2. Almost identical results, except that the buildings took slightly different lengths of time to collapse. I see no reason not to believe that the discrepancy can't be explained by the fact that the two planes hit at different levels. 

Speaking of planes exploding, I assume you haven't seen the tape of the Concorde accident. It blew up in a terrible fireball, thanks to a punctured fuel tank.

In 1977, two planes collided on the runway in Tenerife, Canary Islands. They exploded.

And TWA 800 blew up over Long Island in 1996. In this case, conspiracy buffs have been looking for sidewinder missles and such, but electrical problems in the fuel systems seem more rational. (Must be wrong, then.)



> i'm sorry where was the explosion in the pentagon?


AFAIK there is no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, so none of us is in a position to say whether there was an explosion or not, but I'm sure you saw the fires and damage in the aftermath. And don't forget that the Pentagon is structurally very different from a tall office tower. It's essentially a reinforced-concrete bunker. Similar force can be expected to have very different results.



> where was the explosion from the plane that was shot down? oops. i mean the one that magically fell. nothing to do with it's destination.


Once again there is no footage of that crash, no matter how it occurred. How do you know there was no fireball? How do you know fuel wasn't jettisoned at some point during the descent? And don't forget, even if there was an explosion, there is a big difference between a crash in an open field and one into a tall building. 



> EDIT: btw, even if the jet fuel was explosive it would have all been expended in seconds. how was the fire perpetuated? metals? yes a metal is fuel also, but how long does it take for a metal to ignite? and for the flames to continue on for days? all just from the one jet? yea. good one.


If the blast was strong enough to start uncontrollable fires, then it's a sufficient explanation. Perhaps if there's a physicist, chemist or engineer in the audience, they could give us some rough calculations indicating whether it was or not. Ideally accounting for the fact that an office building isn't simply a pile of steel, concrete and glass. Until then, I'll continue to believe parsimonious, rational explanations.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

gnatsum said:


> when was the last time a plane BLEW UP. let alone was even capable of flattening a 1400ft. high building? and then melting it down to it's base? i'm sorry where was the explosion in the pentagon? where was the explosion from the plane that was shot down? oops. i mean the one that magically fell. nothing to do with it's destination.


Oh dear, here we go again. Did you see the crash in Toronto? That plane was burnt to a crisp. It was lower on fuel, traveling at extremely low speed, and it barely even hit anything! Now put walls around it, add a full tank of fuel, an impact at cruising speed and then see what happens.



gnatsum said:


> and don't gimme that b.s. about think that it's absurd that anyone would do this? give me a break. America let their own people die before so that they had reason to go to war.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yours and every other conspiracy theorist's is at least 95% nonsense.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

iMatt said:


> ...except that the buildings took slightly different lengths of time to collapse. I see no reason not to believe that the discrepancy can't be explained by the fact that the two planes hit at different levels.


I don't believe this is correct. The WTC towers had their main pillars around the outside of the building. This allowed them to have very large floors without any interruptions (pillars) inside. When the explosion blew off the fireproofing, and the heat melted the cross-beams, eventually the floors collapsed. I don't see any evidence that the weight of the building above could speed up this process. It is the impact of one floor collapsing that caused the remaining floors to come down.

The time difference between the two buildings is probably better explained in other ways, such as the amount of fuel on the plane, cooling from the wind, etc.



iMatt said:


> AFAIK there is no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, so none of us is in a position to say whether there was an explosion or not, but I'm sure you saw the fires and damage in the aftermath. And don't forget that the Pentagon is structurally very different from a tall office tower. It's essentially a reinforced-concrete bunker. Similar force can be expected to have very different results.


There is footage of the pentagon crash taken from a pentagon security camera. It is shown in the conspiracy movie I referenced earlier. There is an explosion.



iMatt said:


> Once again there is no footage of that crash, no matter how it occurred. How do you know there was no fireball? How do you know fuel wasn't jettisoned at some point during the descent? And don't forget, even if there was an explosion, there is a big difference between a crash in an open field and one into a tall building.


Exactly. This is a very different kind of crash. No reason to expect similar results.



iMatt said:


> If the blast was strong enough to start uncontrollable fires, then it's a sufficient explanation. Perhaps if there's a physicist, chemist or engineer in the audience, they could give us some rough calculations indicating whether it was or not. Ideally accounting for the fact that an office building isn't simply a pile of steel, concrete and glass. Until then, I'll continue to believe parsimonious, rational explanations.


As far as fuel being disbursed by the initial explosion, yeah okay, but when you're in an enclosed space, I don't see how that could be expected to help!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

jasonwood said:


> The time difference between the two buildings is probably better explained in other ways, such as the amount of fuel on the plane, cooling from the wind, etc.


OK. The "different levels" explanation is, I believe, one that was suggested shortly after the attacks. But if it doesn't wash and there are better explanations or other variables that are more important, that's fine by me. 

All I know is I don't buy the "planes don't explode, and they never took down a big building before" argument. 



> As far as fuel being disbursed by the initial explosion, yeah okay, but when you're in an enclosed space, I don't see how that could be expected to help!


Indeed. Just in case I wasn't clear, I believe that the crashes alone are the most rational and parsimonious explanation. 

If there were explosive devices planted elsewhere in the buildings, it would make sense to me that they would have been planted by other terrorist cells, not by shady government operatives trying to rig an excuse for war. But I don't believe that such devices would have been required.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

gnatsum said:


> it's counterfactual history. if pearl harbour never happened. the U.S. would not have entered WW2. that's why roosevelt let it happen. think critically. don't just listen to what logic and reason makes you believe. logic is a common way for a seemingly smart person to shut up a seemingly less smart person.


That's funny your statement in this post is trying to use logic to defend your "fuel"
argument. Sort of like the church using scienitific arguments to debunk, well, science.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And we're back to the FSM. Cue Jason...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Anybody ever see a comedy called "The Bed Sitting Room"? There are 23 people left alive in England after a nuclear holocaust, and one guy is determined to prove the conspiracy that the Russkies dipped the bombs in bacteria before dropping them on England.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Beej said:


> And we're back to the FSM. Cue Jason...


lol... we'll I'm not going to go on about pastafarianism again, but this does remind me of something else that really gets my goat...

Ever notice how in the mass media, it's the skeptics who are always made to look stupid? X-Files is a perfect example. I mean, was Scully ever right about anything? Yet, as an investigator in the real world, if you weren't certain that everything has a natural explanation, you'd never get anywhere!!!

But maybe there's hope yet... I saw an episode of CSI a few days ago featuring a Psychic, and at one stage, it actually looked as though she had psychic powers, but thankfully, Grissom figured it out 2 seconds before the end of the show.

Oh and by the way, iMatt, I didn't mean to be overly critical of your theories, just knew that some of the conspiracists were going to find the holes, so I fugured I'd plug them first!;-)


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

iMatt said:


> AFAIK there is no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, so none of us is in a position to say whether there was an explosion or not, but I'm sure you saw the fires and damage in the aftermath. And don't forget that the Pentagon is structurally very different from a tall office tower. It's essentially a reinforced-concrete bunker. Similar force can be expected to have very different results.


In fact, there is a series of security camera pictures. The plane exploded in a huge fireball which is, duh, kind of what you would expect from a something that is, by design, extremely flammable. Of course, the true believers here will say the pictures were doctored.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

nxnw said:


> In fact, there is a series of security camera pictures. The plane exploded in a huge fireball which is, duh, kind of what you would expect from a something that is, by design, extremely flammable. Of course, the true believers here will say the pictures were doctored.


Well actually, what these so called "believers" would say is that the video is proof that there was no plane, because you can't see a plane on the video.

I'm afraid that's just what happens when you're shooting such a small area and the plane is going 850kmph!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nobody has still explained why WTC 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane and what Silverstein meant, captured on video tape, by; "pull it" re: WTC 7


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> nobody has still explained why WTC 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane and what Silverstein meant, captured on video tape, by; "pull it" re: WTC 7


Elvis and the concrete lobby ('Big Conc') did it.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> nobody has still explained why WTC 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane


My hypothesis from post #53:



> Then there's WTC 7. Without knowing the detailed geography of the site, but knowing that these were not simply concrete buildings planted in solid ground but rather a complex of elaborate tunnels and structures more or less floating on landfill, itself piled onto riverbed, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that the collapse of the two tallest (and probably largest) office buildings in the world would have created serious instability for surrounding buildings.
> 
> Personally, I don't raise my eyebrows over WTC 7 collapsing, so much as I marvel that other nearby buildings weren't rendered hopelessly unstable.


Care to debunk my hypothesis?



> and what Silverstein meant, captured on video tape, by; "pull it" re: WTC 7


I haven't seen this tape, so no comment from me, but others have addressed this.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> Elvis and the concrete lobby ('Big Conc') did it.


I think MacSpectrum did it. After all, why was MacSpectrum NOT in New York on Sep. 11/01? Why is he so obsessed with deflecting suspicion from himself by blaming others? Can he explain why the numerical value of his initials add up to 24, the name of a TV program that was to debut only days after 9/11 with an episode where terrorists blow up a passenger airplane? Can he explain why he uses a mysterious alias?

And there's more! He has books: Can he prove that he didn't get these books from the Dallas book depository? Why does he have a grassy knoll in his backyard? 

......


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I think MacSpectrum did it. After all, why was MacSpectrum NOT in New York on Sep. 11/01? Why is he so obsessed with deflecting suspicion from himself by blaming others? Can he explain why the numerical value of his initials add up to 24, the name of a TV program that was to debut only days after 9/11 with an episode where terrorists blow up a passenger airplane? Can he explain why he uses a mysterious alias?
> 
> And there's more! He has books: Can he prove that he didn't get these books from the Dallas book depository? Why does he have a grassy knoll in his backyard?
> 
> ......


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Edit: I am offended that nxnw didn't give me any laughing emoticons and suspect that it's part of a larger conspiracy involving the military-industrial complex, imperialism, the media and big pharma to supress laughter -- the best medicine.]


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

jasonwood said:


> Well actually, what these so called "believers" would say is that the video is proof that there was no plane, because you can't see a plane on the video.
> 
> I'm afraid that's just what happens when you're shooting such a small area and the plane is going 850kmph!


There is a frame where you can see it, but not clearly. There are sad cases who will claim that the fireball was not caused by the aircraft that was tracked on radar, seen by eyewitnesses, and extinguished the lives of its passengers and crew. They will say it was Martians or mutants or the Starship Enterprise, or something equally preposterous.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Sorry to all those who identify as non-"conspiracists" but... all arguments in this thread seem to support a conspiracy theory of some kind.

The officially sanctioned conspiracy theory is that a group of Saudi nationals conspired to bring down the World Trade Center by ramming the towers with hijacked passenger jets.

There is also an overt conspiracy to make & keep secret some of the known useful evidence that may or may not support the official conspiracy theory.

It is also apparent that there was a conspiracy to use this tragic event to generate popular support for a non-sequitur invasion of Iraq: an even more tragic event.

The perfectly symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 is a unique conspiracy of natural laws - otherwise known as a miracle.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> *{evil symbols deleted}*
> 
> [Edit: I am offended that nxnw didn't give me any laughing emoticons and suspect that it's part of a larger conspiracy involving the military-industrial complex, imperialism, the media and big pharma to supress laughter -- the best medicine.]


I purposely do not use these symbols that must not be named because I am firmly convinced that they are the instrument of a diabolical conspiracy. Sad am I to see that you have joined the conspiracy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Can anyone disprove my theory or nxnw's with information that isn't from those who are manipulating us?


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

nxnw said:


> I think MacSpectrum did it.


Oops, I spoke to soon/late. The MacSpectrum theory would seem to exclude notions of conspiracy. i buy it.


----------



## Pantechnicon (May 9, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> nobody has still explained why WTC 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane and what Silverstein meant, captured on video tape, by; "pull it" re: WTC 7


The answer to Macspectrum's query may lie here:
(found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/letters.html)

"Ever since analyses of the collapse of the twin towers began to appear, I have been troubled by the omission of a most relevant piece of evidence. Dr. Eagar alludes to it in his first sentence but never follows up. My problem is: If the towers came down as a result of the crash-related structural damage, obliteration of fireproofing, and burning fuel, then why did the 47-story Building 7, which was not hit, also fall some hours later? It apparently failed as the result of a common fire. Now that is scary, because it suggests that all tall buildings are likewise vulnerable. Will someone please explain that?"

Bill Denton
Mempis, Tennessee


Dr. Eagar responds:

"I was also curious about Building 7 when it was described to me. I told the person who described it that there must have been another source of fuel in that building. It turns out there was. Building 7 contained the New York City Emergency Management Control Station, and as a result, it had three tanks of diesel fuel holding tens of thousands of gallons to run their emergency electric generators. What we learn from this is not to store tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in high-rise buildings. Fortunately, most high-rises do not have such huge fuel storage facilities."


It appears there was a tremendous amount of fuel available to create similar conditions as in the twin towers.


----------

