Please, for those who believe 100% in the Islamic terrorist attack theory, please at the very least, watch the documentary Loose Change(2nd edition)and look at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website before spouting off some immature crap that adds very little to either side of the debate.

Seriously, to me it comes down to Occam's Razor.

The idea of a plan to blow up the towers using remotely detonated explosives, carried off successfully in combination with an airplane attack on them, is just too byzantine (and too dependent on everything going just so) for me to accept. While on the other hand the idea that the Bush administration was caught off-guard by a terrorist attack, yet was able to spin the episode for its own purposes, is apparently too byzantine for a lot of people here to accept.

It's sort of like the opposite of the Kennedy assassination, where the lone-gunman theory forces you to accept a lot of highly implausible physics concerning the magic bullet and Oswald's ability to run down a flight of stairs, among other things, while the conspiracy narrative forces you to accept a story of various forces within and outside the US government working together covertly to effect a change of leadership that advanced their often divergent interests. Political cause-and-effect can be quite complicated; physical cause-and-effect has less leeway.

You could argue that the "lone planes" theory has its own implausibilities, and perhaps it does. But one problem with the demolition theory is that it's based on the observation that the collapse of the towers happened in the same way that buildings collapse when they're demolished by explosives. That doesn't mean that the collapse did NOT happen in the same way that highrise office buildings collapse after being weakened by fires started as the result of being hit by large passenger jet airplanes filled with fuel and travelling at a high speed. We have numerous examples of the former (i.e., controlled demolitions), but only two examples (if that) of the latter.

[ 15 May 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

The choppy image of the plane suggesting there was something on the bottom was pretty pittiful given the other dozens of cameras that caught the collision in HIGHER DEFINITION.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:
I can bring up the obvious question: If someone was in a position to demolish the WTC by explosives alone, then why involve planes at all?

---

You're missing the whole point. The planes, (BTW, does anyone have links to footage of the one that hit the first tower?) are needed to take the blame.

Let's start with a fact everyone can agree on: Two towers, consisting of 110 storeys of concrete and steel, crumbled virtually straight down into a tidy pile of pulverized dust, in a matter of approximately 10 seconds each.

quote:

---

Two towers, consisting of 110 storeys of concrete and steel, crumbled virtually straight down into a tidy pile of pulverized dust

---

No we do not agree. Most of the debris from the site was not dust, it was huge piles of concrete and twisted steel wreckage. The "dust" theory is just one of the long list of factual distortions by loony conspiracy theorists. The "dust" theory is used to claim that the collapse of the towers was a manmade "controlled demolition".

Also, the first tower to fall did not fall straight down, it fell at an angle, sideways. This is clear from photos and videos, and also from the fact that massive steel girders and concrete chunks were hurled sideways and smashed into buildings nearby, at an angle away from the South tower, totally demolishing a few adjacent office buildings and hotels.

The entire conspiracy theory is bogus and has been repeatedly refuted by structural engineers, fire engineers, professional accident investigators and other experts who actually looked into the events and who actually have some well-founded legitimate expertise in the collapse of large structures.

And as I wrote in another thread: how come none of the conspiracy theories have been printed in peer-reviewed scientific, forensic, or engineering journals of any repute?

Maybe because the theorists have made a lot of stuff up: dust, fell straight down, inaccurately reported explosions heard before the collapse, inaccurately reported seismic readings, pods under the wings, etc.

And none of the conspiracy theorists ever examined any of the actual physical evidence.

It is all bogus.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

Loose change has some credible info and some questionable facts but there are parts of it that I can only roll my eyes at.

A Crosshair printed on the world trade center? Jeese, since it was never a target to terrorists prior.

I didn't mean high definition I meant higher definition.

In loose change they show a choppy picture of a plane and a shadow trying to pass it off as something attached to the bottom while other cameras picked up the jet, and it was no cargo plane.

The point about the burning buildings was irrelevent considering they didn't have a jumbo jet crash into them with 10,000 pounds of jet fuel.

bullshit

It's quite one thing to doubt the government, it's quite another to make shit up.

quote:

---

Jeese, since it was never a target to terrorists prior.

---

If it is loony to believe there was a conspiracy it is equally loony to believe there wasn't. The whole "bin laden did it" nonsense is a conspiracy theory, isn't it? So the argument is that one of the most sophisticated security states ever crerated is not capable of doing what bin Laden has managed? And that's not a loony proposition?

quote:

---

The idea of a plan to blow up the towers using remotely detonated explosives, carried off successfully in combination with an airplane attack on them, is just too byzantine (and too dependent on everything going just so) for me to accept.

---

Yes, but some guy with a kidney disorder and a satellite phone in a cave in Afghnistan is perfectly believable to the same bunch of lunatics who would call others lunatics for suggesting the attacks required a great deal of sophisticated planning and execution.

For me, I will forget the whole thing when the defenders of a bin-laden conspiracy theory can explain to me three things:

How did bin Laden know the US, ordered by Runsfeld/Cheney, would be engaged in a series of excercises based on hi-jacked aircraft at the exact same time his operatives would be carrying out their dastardly deed (we all believe in unbelievably good for the bad guys coincidences, right)?

How do you reconcile that a) the PNAC, the authors of whom occupy the whitehouse, just happened to call for a new Pearl Harbour and Presto!, there it is? and b) The US had plans to kill Americans as a pretext for war against Cuba demonstrating that such thinking is not beyond the realms of US policy makers?

Lastly, explain why building seven which just happened to be a key building containing sensitive offices and information fell?

When those questions are answerwed satisfactorilly by the bin laden conspiracy buts I will happily accept that the murderous Bush regime had nothing to do with it.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Jeese, since it was never a target to terrorists prior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't? Tell that to the guy sitting in a US jail for setting off a bomb in the parking garage of the world trade center

---

I should have made that more clear

quote:

---

And as I wrote in another thread: how come none of the conspiracy theories have been printed in peer-reviewed scientific, forensic, or engineering journals of any repute?

---

As we say in French, "poser la question, c'est y répondre".

I am compiling some background info on the building of the twin towers.

Briefly, from 1964 onwards to the opening of the towers, in the early 70s, there had been critics who warned about how an uncontrollable fire could buckle and bring down the steel of the towers because of the lack of columns between the perimeter wall and the service core (this was why the Twin Towers were considered architecturally revolutionary - no intermediary columns which had never been done) and because of the lack of adequate fireproofing. The NY Fire Department had many worries in the 1960s about the buildings.

As well, it was known that the building model was never fire tested prior to construction (no real lab testing of how the steel, which was much thinner than in any previous skyscrapers, another part of the so-called revolutionary design, would react to intense temperatures).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
There are plenty of credible scholars listed in the link from "Scholars for 911 Truth" in the OP, including Canadian AK Dewdney, whose reputation is unparalleled. Their arguments are largely based on suspecting the cover-ups, not on the science of buidling collapse, and they're worth paying attention to.

Maybe there's no "there" here, but we'll never really know until we see all the evidence we can.

---

Here is his theory of 911:

Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.

These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).

This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.

Operation Pearl

You have got to be kidding! The conspiracy theorists have taken leave of their senses!

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

Fans of conspiracy theories are really more kookoo than I at first assumed...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
. . . And as I wrote in another thread: how come none of the conspiracy theories have been printed in peer-reviewed scientific, forensic, or engineering journals of any repute? . . .

---

How come none of the forensic evidence supporting the official story has been examined in scientific peer-reviewed journals. That is usually what happens after a catastrophe. But not the Towers, which seems to have been relegated to superficial treatment in the 9/11 Official Commission Report (a bestseller!) and Popular Mechanics(!).

The theories of the "the CIA/space aliens/Rumsfeld deliberately blew up the buildings but masked the fact by pretending to hijack 4 planes and fly them into the buildings" school have not been accepted in any reputable scientific or technical or aeronautics or forensic journal. Those theories appear on Internet websites created for the purpose of disseminating unproven and unprovable conspiracy theories, because no one else with any credible engineering or technical background will publish them in reputable publications.

The conspiracy theorists and their supporters want us to believe the Earth is flat. That is why no real serious technical, aeronautic or engineering publications will touch their writings with a barge pole.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
There have been articles on the building collapses in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, JOM (journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society), Scientific American, etc.

The theories of the "the CIA/space aliens/Rumsfeld deliberately blew up the buildings but masked the fact by pretending to hijack 4 planes and fly them into the buildings" school have not been accepted in any reputable scientific or technical or aeronautics or forensic journal. Those theories appear on Internet websites created for the purpose of disseminating unproven and unprovable conspiracy theories, because no one else with any credible engineering or technical background will publish them in reputable publications.

The conspiracy theorists and their supporters want us to believe the Earth is flat. That is why no real serious technical, aeronautic or engineering publications will touch their writings with a barge pole.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

---

There is one very good reason as to why respected organizations dare not challenge the official statement - the immense fear of the political backlash. It would be such a huge risk for them to go against the official statement especially if their other counterparts weren't comfortable with doing so. It would mean ALL of them coming together and agreeing to challenge it - not likely.... but you never know!

-- OR --

What all these respected academic journals are saying could very well be right and all the alternative theories are bullshit. Cause lets face it.. if Penn and Teller says anything other than the official story is bullshit.... who are we to question other wise.. I mean... that guy would literally eat you!

Now... if that was the case, and the official statement was rock solid.... then there shouldn't be any problems allowing for anyone body or group to perform a PUBLIC inquiry into 9/11. I'm talking multiple independent organizations being allowed FULL unrestricted access to:

* flight data of the 4 planes involved

* subsequent plane wreckage that was recovered afterwards including the black boxes

* photo/video evidence that was confiscated - like the Sheraton hotel, gas station and Virginia highway footage overlooking I-395 and the pentagon's point of impact

* any material left over from the WTC's (which there must be tons of)

quote:

---

Fans of conspiracy theories are really more kookoo than I at first assumed..

---

See, now you are just being an asshole. I am referring not to the two main towers but to the planning and execution of the attacks and building number seven which has not been satisfactorally explained by any of your engineers.

The problem is some people are so wrapped up in "offical" bullshit they wouldn't reconize truth when it slaps them upside the head so they resort to name calling rather than debate.

You are the one advocating a conspiracy theory. You are the whacko who says it was a conspiracy of Islamic terrorists half the world away operating from caves.

The sane among us, those without the tinfoil hats, merely question the validity and veracity of the entirely laughable official version.

Not one of you conspiracy nuts will address the question of the war games and the exceptionally neat timing and nature of the games. Why not? Because it threatens your store bought and nicely packaged ideas.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

They also claim buildings like the towers cannot collapse from a huge plane crash and the ensuing uncontrollable fire despite evidence to the contrary explained by many of the techbnical articles referred to, they claim that the towers had to be inddestructible somehow (despite many warnings from critics between 1964 and 1970 as I mentioned above - I will get the citations later), they claim, falsely, that the concrete was pulverized into dust (most of the debris was chunks of concrete), that the buildings collapsed straight down (one fell at close to a 25-30% degree angle), that the hole in the Pentagon was too small for a plane (in 1945 a US bomber smashed into the Empire State Building - it was some 60-70 feet wide, the hole was only 18 feet wide - wings disintegrate when they smash into reinforced concrete d'uh), they claim people heard explosions in the lower floors before the collapse (yes, the fuel went down the elevator and service shafts - as happened in 1945 with the Empire State Bldg crash, fires blew out the elevators in the lobby burning many people to death, basement electrical equipment blew up, there was a documentary by French filmmakers who by coicidence were following firefights that morning - when they ended up in the lobby of one of the towers, one could hear very loud explosions - the firefighters at one point turned to the windows looking onto the outdoor plaze - the explosions were the sounds of bodies of people who fell or jumped to their deaths and who exploded on the pavement), etc etc etc

The cnspiracy claims are wildly exaggerated and without proof. No wonder no engineering or technical journal will publish this nonsense - whenever one looks into any of the supposed facts proving the conspiracy, more plausible, provable, factual explanations connected to real evidence are available.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
That is not what the conspiracy theories are about. These people are claiming they know or have evidence it must have been a deliberate controlled demolition, with explosives planted by who knows who.

They also claim buildings like the towers cannot collapse from a huge plane crash and the ensuing uncontrollable fire despite evidence to the contrary explained by many of the techbnical articles referred to, they claim that the towers had to be inddestructible somehow (despite many warnings from critics between 1964 and 1970 as I mentioned above - I will get the citations later), they claim, falsely, that the concrete was pulverized into dust (most of the debris was chunks of concrete), that the buildings collapsed straight down (one fell at close to a 25-30% degree angle), that the hole in the Pentagon was too small for a plane (in 1945 a US bomber smashed into the Empire State Building - it was some 60-70 feet wide, the hole was only 18 feet wide - wings disintegrate when they smash into reinforced concrete d'uh), they claim people heard explosions in the lower floors before the collapse (yes, the fuel went down the elevator and service shafts - as happened in 1945 with the Empire State Bldg crash, fires blew out the elevators in the lobby burning many people to death, basement electrical equipment blew up, there was a documentary by French filmmakers who by coicidence were following firefights that morning - when they ended up in the lobby of one of the towers, one could hear very loud explosions - the firefighters at one point turned to the windows looking onto the outdoor plaze - the explosions were the sounds of bodies of people who fell or jumped to their deaths and who exploded on the pavement), etc etc etc

The cnspiracy claims are wildly exaggerated and without proof. No wonder no engineering or technical journal will publish this nonsense - whenever one looks into any of the supposed facts proving the conspiracy, more plausible, provable, factual explanations connected to real evidence are available.

It is nonsense. The Earth is not flat.

---

The towers were not indestructible BUT were built to withstand an impact from a passenger jet, 150 year storm, explosions, fire and very high winds.

Fuel falling down the elevator shafts? Stop and think about this... huge fire roaring.. yet fuel.. from the airplane did not catch fire and instead drip down the shaft? You probably meant and explosion of fire went down the shaft... right? Either way, it still doesn't explain the seismic activity recorded before the towers fell, nor the many testimonies of explosions long after the planes hit but prior to the towers falling. A very good example of of seismic activity is the camera mounted on a tripod filming the burning WTC's and then wobbles quite a bit before the towers fell (as shown in loose change 2).

With regards to the Pentagon, wings don't just DISINTEGRATE into nothing when they smack into concrete, there will be pieces left over someplace, they will leave a mark. Force has to be transferred from one entity to another... this is basic inertial physics here. Those engines were 6 tons of hard steel and TITANIUM. That would have left SOMETHING of a mark! I once read on Snopes.com about how the wings collapsed into the plane thus allowing the plane to fit into the 18 foot hole. RRRRIIIGGGHHHTT.

WTC - very thin steel columns (only a few inches thick above the 70-75th floors), thin curtain walls on the facade, extra thin foam fireproofing (max 1 and a half inches) knocked off by the collision (many survivors from floors near the crashes who made it out remarked that they could see that steel beams exposed when the wall or ceiling panels had fallen from impact were bare, in other words, they had lost any fireproof coating - it had been knocked off), wide open floors with no steel supports between the external wall and the core.

It was released today. It is a plane, not a missile, like the conspiracy theorists have been claiming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
By the way, there was a Freedom of Information request for access to footage of the crash into teh Pentagon.

It was released today. It is a plane, not a missile, like the conspiracy theorists have been claiming.

Article on Pentagon video of 9/11 crash

---

The judicial site was down and if these are the 5 freeze frame images then I've seen them a while ago. IF this is full scale video then it's something I for sure want to see!

You should be thankful. I'm pretty ugly.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
There's a face I haven't seen in a while

You should be thankful. I'm pretty ugly.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Hey, I remember a guy around here named Hinterland. Wasn't he an FD'er?

---

I actually saw the documentary yesterday and although I am neither a physicist or an engineer, I thought some interesting questions were raised. I also believe that Dr. Jones who is a physicist also raises some very interesting points. I confess I have not yet made up my mind about the veracity of the evidence
I do think it worthwhile to note that science is based around encouraging and exploring alternate hypothesis and scrutinizing the data that is presented in research. By it’s very nature it is supposed to invite critical analysis not stifle it.

It is worthwhile that noting that scientific journals can be inaccurate, influenced by politics both within and without academia, and often are reflections of schools of thought or ideology as much as they guarantee quality research. There have recently been some high profile scandals in major medical journals that raised serious questions about the validity of printed research articles. Furthermore the annals of scientific literature are filled with faulty hypothesis, poor methodology, and misguided analysis, go to the stacks and have a look. Even under the best conditions peer-reviewed does not involve in depth scrutiny.

In this particular instance the stakes are even higher it would impossible for any scientist or journal to write or publish an article critical of the official line without raising the most serious political accusations imaginable. To make such accusations would be career suicide or literally in the case of the WMD researcher in England. Even if you don’t agree with these theories surely it is at least understandable why no one would be in a hurry to publish them.

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

Looking at the pictures of the Murrah Building collapse really makes me wonder about what happened at WTC7.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
No we do not agree. Most of the debris from the site was not dust, it was huge piles of concrete and twisted steel wreckage. The "dust" theory is just one of the long list of factual distortions by loony conspiracy theorists. Also, the first tower to fall did not fall straight down, it fell at an angle, sideways.

---

First, you are just nit-picking about the exactness of the language. So you deny there was an awful lot of dust, and that they didn't fall virtually, practically, straight down. Fine.

quote:

---

...how come none of the conspiracy theories have been printed in peer-reviewed scientific, forensic, or engineering journals of any repute?

---

I agree that this is a key question. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth might have something to say about it.

quote:

---

Maybe because the theorists have made a lot of stuff up: dust, fell straight down, inaccurately reported explosions heard before the collapse, inaccurately reported seismic readings, pods under the wings, etc.

---

Dust, straight down. Yes, pretty much, if you can believe TV. Inaccurately reported explosions??? CritMass2, you didn't watch Loose Change did you?

quote:

---

And none of the conspiracy theorists ever examined any of the actual physical evidence.

---

Again, did you see Loose Change, and do you claim ALL the claims made therein are bogus? Wasn't the evidence at ground zero, which would have been replete with forensic evidence, hastily shipped off to another country to be, of all things, recycled? How conscientious of Mayor Giulani.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
And BTW Boom Boom, it seems you didn't watch Loose Change either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
It is curious that one side in this debate who perceive themselves as the arbiters of rationality have spent most of their time denouncing the other side as crack pots and conspiracy theorists, hardly brilliant debating tactics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

You're an idiot. Go fuck yourself.

---

For the record, before you delete it yourself. Moderators please take note.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

For the record, before you delete it yourself. Moderators please take note.

and I suppose that means you didn't watch the video.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
You're still an idiot. Go fuck yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Nice, but anyone catch the footage they finally [italics added] released Showing the plane actually crashing into the Pentagon? Guess Ruppert and Goff will have to come up with a new angle about the 'impossibility' of it all.

---

And what took them so bloody long to release this footage? Why wasn't it released for the evening news on 11 September 2001, or soon thereafter?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

And what took them so bloody long to release this footage? Why wasn't it released for the evening news on 11 September 2001, or soon thereafter?

---

Funny, that's Exactly what the guy on the tv asked. Hhmm. Actually they just said they held it back so as not to intefere with the Moussaui procedings, but how should I know? No links here as not my thing, but give it a couple more days, sure it'll cause some ripples.

(I'm somewhat in the undecided middle on this BTW, as I think there very likely Was some coverup and closed eyes, given all the lies and strange happenstance, and they definitey exploited this to the fullest, but I never saw the need for such elaborate and high risk plans when there were already several fuel laden planes to do the job and other fanatics willing to crash them. I also don't see the need for Bush being one Hundred percent behind Everything that went wrong, but that too may just be me)

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Its impossible to take any conspiracy theory seriously if you remember two pretty general truths:
1. people are incompetent
2. every conspiracy is unraveled within 24 hours

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
The Oklahoma City bombing theory has a wiki:

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

Looking at the pictures of the Murrah Building collapse really makes me wonder about what happened at WTC7.

]

If there are videos of the Oklahoma City bombing, they really should release those. I think any privacy or security concerns are outweighed by the public's need to have accurate info about important world events.

---

Yes, it really does make a person think. After serious evaluation of all possibilities I think it was the Roswell aliens in conjunction with the Republican party. The Roswell cover-up ties in with Oklahoma City and 9/11.
[URL=http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/ritson/scispi/roswell/

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: CountryAB ]

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: CountryAB ]

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: CountryAB ]

I don't care if you are not as big on governmental transparency as I am, but please at least quote me correctly. Specifically, there was no UFO related links or discussion in my quote.

The idea that McVeigh might have had a helper or 2 at the scene of the crime seems less far-fetched to me than the little green men stuf. Not all conspiracy theorists are created equal.

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
CountryAB,

I don't care if you are not as big on governmental transparency as I am, but please at least quote me correctly. Specifically, there was no UFO related links or discussion in my quote.

The idea that McVeigh might have had a helper or 2 at the scene of the crime seems less far-fetched to me than the little green men stuf. Not all conspiracy theorists are created equal.

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

---

Having said that I haven't seen the film but I remain skeptical of some elements of the alternative scenarios put forward because:

1) There would have to be too many people involved to carry out the attacks and the cover-up without someone squealing. How were they all kept silent? Just look at the number of generals who are criticizing the war in Iraq. A homegrown attack on the WTC and Pentagon would be viewed as treason by many.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:

1) There would have to be too many people involved to carry out the attacks and the cover-up without someone squealing. How were they all kept silent? Just look at the number of generals who are criticizing the war in Iraq. A homegrown attack on the WTC and Pentagon would be viewed as treason by many.

2) Why bring the towers down after hitting them with jets? Even if only 300 people had died, the "Pearl Harbor" effect would have been the same. I can't see how things would have played themselves out any differently.

---

1) But why is it when the bin Laden conspiracy theory is put forward and widely accepted by the media and repeated ad nauseum these same concerns are not raised? Are Saudi extremists led by a guy in a cave in Afghanisan better at keeping secrets? There is no concern about how they were all kept silent? And yes, it would be considered treason by more than many which provides a very good reason to maintain the silence if there is one.

2) To hide evidence? Evil doers never hide evidence? Building seven wasn't hit by a plance and yet it collapsed. What was in building seven?

I haven't reviewed the following site and so I won't comment on its contents. I am only interested in the list of tenants for building seven:

Salomon Smith Barney
IRS Regional Council
U.S. Secret Service
C.I.A.
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
First State Management Group,
Federal Home Loan Bank
NAIC Securities
Securities & Exchange Commission
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt

http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

Some list, eh? Google the names of some of the financial companies.

Edited to add: Take just the first one:

Bush's Biggest Donors Had Links to Enron

"Three of the big-name Wall Street firms worked on complex deals for either Enron or its many related entities: Credit Suisse First Boston, Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney, and Bank of America. They were, respectively, George W. Bush's second, ninth and eleventh largest contributors."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-01.htm

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

What was in building seven?

---

The creator of loose change (his name eludes me right now) in that interview on 'the hour' last night was asked what his biggest peice of evidence. I'm paraphraising as I am unable to find a transcript of the show, but his answer was along the lines of:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

And what took them so bloody long to release this footage? Why wasn't it released for the evening news on 11 September 2001, or soon thereafter?

Do you have a link to it?

---

People... that clip is nothing new! Remember that the 5 image frames of that same video were released not that long after 9.11. I can't recall the exact time but all that video shows is the before and after. Notice the debris that flew over after impact? Hey did you notice the jet engine and wings that flew off? Me neither.. they were vaporized in the collision!

You want to see new material? Have "them" release the gas station, Sheraton hotel and highway camera tapes.... THEN we'll see just what hit it. Oh they were destroyed? Aww shucks ya'll.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
You moonbat conspiracy theorists are NUTS! NUTS! NUTS! ...there, I feel much better.

Seriously, to me it comes down to Occam's Razor.

The idea of a plan to blow up the towers using remotely detonated explosives, carried off successfully in combination with an airplane attack on them, is just too byzantine (and too dependent on everything going just so) for me to accept. While on the other hand the idea that the Bush administration was caught off-guard by a terrorist attack, yet was able to spin the episode for its own purposes, is apparently too byzantine for a lot of people here to accept.

It's sort of like the opposite of the Kennedy assassination, where the lone-gunman theory forces you to accept a lot of highly implausible physics concerning the magic bullet and Oswald's ability to run down a flight of stairs, among other things, while the conspiracy narrative forces you to accept a story of various forces within and outside the US government working together covertly to effect a change of leadership that advanced their often divergent interests. Political cause-and-effect can be quite complicated; physical cause-and-effect has less leeway.

You could argue that the "lone planes" theory has its own implausibilities, and perhaps it does. But one problem with the demolition theory is that it's based on the observation that the collapse of the towers happened in the same way that buildings collapse when they're demolished by explosives. That doesn't mean that the collapse did NOT happen in the same way that highrise office buildings collapse after being weakened by fires started as the result of being hit by large passenger jet airplanes filled with fuel and travelling at a high speed. We have numerous examples of the former (i.e., controlled demolitions), but only two examples (if that) of the latter.

[ 15 May 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

---

Actually, as Jones notes, there have been buildings that have burned hotter and longer, and not collapsed. Reinforced steel does not melt at the temerature at which rocket fuel burns. Now am I saying that there was an elaborate government conspiracy to blow up the WTC? No. I am saying that the physics of the current explanation don't work. And it worries me that I didn't hear about that in september of 2001. The physics of the magic plane theory. Don't. Bear. Out. From what I have come to understand. And I'd like someone to tell me why this hypothesis is not physically possible instead of simply calling Mr. Jones a conspiracy nut. And of course tower 7, far away from ground zero, receiving only superficial damage, why did that fall? And again like a controled demolition. It's just a hypothesis to be sure, but it's not a disproven one.

So to sum up, I suppose my position is that of Charlie Sheen. We need an investigation... And I could really go for a beer right now.

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: Sean Tisdall ]

quote:

---

Actually, as Jones notes, there have been buildings that have burned hotter and longer, and not collapsed.

---

quote:

---

Reinforced steel does not melt at the temerature at which rocket fuel burns.

---

quote:

---

Dunno. Were they as tall, designed in a similar way to function the same, with similar materials and material properties, where environmental conditions were the same? Too many variables to make an honest or reasoned comparison.

---

Here's a link to a page which describes other skyscrapers which did not collapse due to fires.

There was a 56 floor skyscraper with major fires in Caracas, Venezuela on Oct 17 2004.

The fire spread 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof, and burrned for 17 hours without collapsing. The WTC towers burned for 56 and 74 minutes before they collapsed. This building was steel framed like the WTC buildings and was completed in 1976 (the WTC towers were completed in 1970 and 1973).

While I am not a structural engineer and not qualified to make judgements on how similar the design and materials of this building was to the WTC towers, I do find it very odd that the two WTC towers were the first skyscrapers ever to collapse due to uncontrolled fires. The third building to collapse due to uncontrolled fires was WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.

In the last 50 years there have been over 100 large buildings with uncontrolled fires, some burning for days, and none of them ever collapsed (excluding the twin towers and WTC 7).

quote:

---

JET fuel was not the only thing that burned. Look around you from where you sit and determine what combustibles are present. No doubt these office buildings had tables and chairs, coatings, paper,carpets, wood paneling, etc. etc. And, from my experience, you don't need to turn a material molten to recognize a change to its material properties. Raising the temperature to a certain point will change the tensile and compressive strengths of structural steel (and concrete) enough to compromise its intended function. Once compromised.....

---

ALL of the other combustibles you present (tables and chairs, coatings, paper, carpets, wood paneling, etc., etc.) would burn at temperatures much lower than that of jet fuel. And all the other building which did not collapse due to fire would have conatined similar combustibles.

Also, the official story is that it was burning jet fuel which caused the towers to collapse. All we can really debate here is whether or not the official story makes sense.

Here's a letter sent by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology November 17, 2004:

quote:

---

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

...

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

...

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

---

Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan's employment at Underwriters Laboratories was terminated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

The creator of loose change (his name eludes me right now) in that interview on 'the hour' last night was asked what his biggest peice of evidence. I'm paraphraising as I am unable to find a transcript of the show, but his answer was along the lines of:

"

---

quote:

---

Here's a link to a page which describes other skyscrapers which did not collapse due to fires.

---

quote:

---

ALL of the other combustibles you present (tables and chairs, coatings, paper, carpets, wood paneling, etc., etc.) would burn at temperatures much lower than that of jet fuel.

---

quote:

---

Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan's employment at Underwriters Laboratories was terminated.

---

quote:

---

How many of those buildings had had a large aircraft at a high rate of speed explode through multiple floors, taking out floor supports and columns?

---

Well WTC7 certainly didn't. None of the "rationalists" seem to be addressing this. Why did WTC7 collapse? Why was molten steel found under the rubble of WTC7?

quote:

---

What about plastics, chemicals and other sources of fuel?

---

I don't know. What kind of fuel are you talking about? Are you claiming that there were plastics and chemicals and fuels in the towers that burn hotter than jet fuel? Can you back this up?

quote:

---

Understandable. Usually failures are the result of many factors.

---

quote:

---

And what is the significance of what happened to building 7? How does it disprove the official theory?

---

Between the time where the twin towers were hit and when WTC 7 fell, there would not have been enough time to rig the building with explosives. That would imply
a) The building was pre-rigged and they were waiting for a good excuse to drop it
b) WTC 7 was purposely timed to go down with the trade towers... In which case, someone with authority knew the attacks were coming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
I don't know... maybe it was close to two large skyscrapers that collapsed, or something like that. And what is the significance of what happened to building 7? How does it disprove the official theory?

---

And I also don't understand how the pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 would fit into this whole narrative of the two larger towers being destroyed. To paraphrase Orwell, although I can understand how, I don't understand why. Why blow up Building 7? Why blow up WTC 1 and 2, for that matter?

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
I haven't seen the Loose Change film or the Scholars for Truth website. I might, and I might not. I don't think that I need to be familiar with them to take part in this discussion, although I realize it would help me in debating the film and the website in particular. I'm approaching this from the broader perspective of trying to understand the political context behind whatever happened."

---

And this is the problem. You seem interested in this topic but you don't seem willing to consider the information. Check the movie out, it's easy to find streaming versions with a small window (i think someone posted the link way above but don't really have time to check) or loose change and several other 911 documentaries worth seeing can be found at www.torrentspy.com.

I would recommend Loose Change as the first one to see as it does a good job of drawing the whole picture. I have seen clips of an Alex Jones 911 movie that is good for specific details, but (at least from the clips i saw) doesn't attempt to present an overall picture. I'm not sure, but I think the clips that i saw were from Martial Law: 911 & the Rise of the Police State. Another movie I have seen is 911 In Plane Sight, by a radio host (www.powerhour.com). I felt that this one was not so well done...specifically because the host comes off as more of a comspiracy kook, using phrases like "is it beyond the realms of possibility" and focussing on the pods under the planes, which i feel is a red herring. So it is a poor doc to see first, and may turn some people off--but it has excellent coverage of the pentagon stuff, spending lots of time on news video footage of firefighters at the pentagon both before and after the roof collapsed. So I would recommend seeing both of these IF you're still interested AFTER seeing Loose Change (both of these are also available at torrentspy).

But I'll briefly run down why building 7 is important. Ordinarily I would spend some time providing links and going through some of the movies to get specific info clear, but i don't have the time right now. And to be honest, you should be spending the time watching the movies, which contain info in an organized, easily absorbable format rather than me spending the time trying to summarize it for you. Keep in mind that i'm going through this based on memory, and if any details are off slightly i'm not trying to misrepresent anything. Here goes:

Building 7 was 350 feet away from the towers and had very little debris fall on it, with sporadic fires. Other buildings (such as the banker's trust building across the street, 45 feet away) had much more debris and much greater fires, yet did not fall. The towers are WTC1 & WTC2. Between WTC7 and the towers were WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6, all of which received substantially more debris than WTC7 and (i think) none of which collapsed. I think debris can be safely ruled out as a reasson for the collapse.

WTC7 fell down sometime in the late afternoon, i think sometime around 5pm. Shortly before it came down, people nearby were told to get further away because they were going to bring the building down. There is video footage of WTC7 right before it collapsed there are small fires here and there. And then it collapses and again, it looked just like a controlled demolition (i'd say even more so than the towers).

The official result of the investigation was that they don't know why building 7 fell. But again, only three large buildings have fallen due to uncontrolled fires...the two towers and building 7. So this is why it's so important--there IS NO official explanation for why it fell.

Now apart from that, sometime after the investigation (it may have been before, this is what my memory is fuzziest about), Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building said live on tv (maybe cnn) that he and the firefighters had decided to "pull it", meaning bring the building down with explosives. This was aired once and never shown again (although this footage is in pretty much every 911 documentary). Despite this interview though, it's not part of the official story, and most people haven't even heard of building 7, the 47 story building that fell.

The problem is, if they did decide to bring the building down, there wouldn't have been enough time to wire the building to do it...so if it was brought down on purpose, it would've had to have been planned beforehand. If it wasn't brought down on purpose, then why did it come down? This building hosted the CIA, FEMA, and the main emergency command bunker for NYC (look way above to see what else was there) and as such was a bulding overengineered to withstand all kinds of stuff.

So how did the building come down?

Again, these movies are more about demonstrating that there are gaping holes in the official story than anything else.

How did building 7 come down, and shouldn't this be explained?

Also, i have to say that i find it odd that you're more concerned with motives for staging an attack than anything else, because to me that seems like the smallest question of all. I'm assuming you're familiar with Operation Northwoods and PNAC, but if not, do your homework.

I don't understand how people can dismiss all of the kooks' arguments without actually examining any of the arguments themselves, but hey, i guess if Bush says we shouldn't question the official line that's good enough, right? Go see the movie, i've already spent way too much of my time on this post and all i'm doing is holding your hand, you could have easily found this out yourself if you care in the slightest.

ETA: oh yeah, good point thorin, molten metal found underneath the rubble of building 7. that makes a lot of sense.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: wage zombie ]

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: wage zombie ]

Re Silverstein and the quote about the decision to "pull it," I thought he'd subsequently said that this referred to the decision to "pull" firefighters out of the building.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caoimhin:
How many of those buildings had had a large aircraft at a high rate of speed explode through multiple floors, taking out floor supports and columns? What was the state of the fire-retardation systems prior to the fire.

---

And moreover, of the cases when airplanes go crashing into office towers, creating enough force and heat to dissolve concrete and melt steel, how likely is a passport to fly off the body of a passenger in the very plane that exploded in flames, and drop down to the ground intact? And, what are the odds that that passport just happened to belong to a hijacker?

Next we will be hearing theories that Moslems (especially brown skinned ones with weird names) don’t take care of their documents as well as others.

[ 29 May 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
Next we will be hearing theories that the pentagon staged the attack on Pearl Harbour to give the US an excuse to attack Japan.

---

As mentioned above, not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Some theories have better evidence supporting their veracity than others.

Speaking of Pearl Harbour...this reminds me, how about this wacko conspiracy theory? I heard that the German government once burnt down their own parliament building, and blamed it on someone else, in order to secure thier power and limit the population’s basic rights. Can you imagine anyone doing such a crazy thing as that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
...
Also, if you do accept conditionally that the evidence is consistent with that of an explosive demolition, you have to come up with a context that explains the demolition.

---

No you don't. And I find it interesting that this is the only basis upon which the defenders of the official story wish to pick apart the demolition theory. This is probably why they want the conspiracy theories to provide so much conjecture.

I will reiterate a point I made in the other thread: the demolition theory has more historical evidence to support it than the "Really Very Hot Fire" theory. And the critics here have still been unable to point out to anyone which facts the conspiracy theorists are "making up".

Michelle, why are these two threads in Canadian politics? This topic has nothing to do with Canadian politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
No you don't. And I find it interesting that this is the only basis upon which the defenders of the official story wish to pick apart the demolition theory. This is probably why they want the conspiracy theories to provide so much conjecture.

---

In terms of the physical evidence, I'm undecided. I will watch and review the sources suggested when I have time to, although it's not a pressing priority, as I don't think it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things that John Yossarian hasn't seen The Scholars for Truth Website or Loose Change The Documentary. From a superficial point of view, it seems to me that there's a relationship between two large fuel-filled jet airliners crashing into two large and somewhat flimsily built office tower skyscrapers and those skyscrapers collapsing later that morning. On the other hand, the buildings sure LOOKED like other buildings do when they fall after being demolished by explosives. And the only other attack on the WTC that we know of was a plot to blow it up with explosives (maybe that's what you mean by "historical evidence").

In terms of the political context behind what happened, I remain skeptical of the official version of events, but I have to say that it makes more sense than any other version I've heard so far. When I said "if you do accept conditionally that the evidence is consistent with that of an explosive demolition, you have to come up with a context that explains the demolition", what I was asking was: if I assume for the sake of argument that the towers were destroyed by explosive demolition, how do I reconcile this with the other elements of what by its nature must have been an extremely byzantine plot, with a significant number of people involved, and a significant number of factors any one of which could have derailed the whole thing if it hadn't gone exactly according to plan?

I mean, the most likely alternatives are that there was a government plot to blow up the towers, and the planes were thrown in as window dressing, or that there was advance government knowledge of the plane plot, and explosives were set up in the building to be remotely detonated after the collision. The first alternative raises a lot of questions about just how the planes were involved in the plot, while the second leaves a lot to chance -- the planes might not have hit the towers, for example.

Now if we were able to eliminate the "really hot fire" theory as impossible, then there would have to be another explanation, and the explosive-demolition theory might well be the best alternative explanation, however implausible. And if we could conclusively PROVE the explosive-demolition theory, then there would have to be some explanation for it, regardless of whether we could figure out what that explanation was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
It still doesn't indicate whether they're guilty of THIS heinous act or the duplicity of covering it up. I think you're seeing what you want to believe is true.

---

FACT Steel in a Pre-Heated oven of 1600 degrees takes 1 hour for every inch of steel to bring it to temperature.(Google if you doubt that)So if the steel was 2 inches think it would take 2 hours to bring the steel to 1600 if it is already at 1600 degrees when it started. Just how thick was the steel in the columns.

The Twin Towers did indeed look like planned implosions however and there are many unanswered questions- esp by families of victims. The Liberty building was curious. I do think a plane hit the Pentagon but that video is kind of weird. And about Flight 93, I don't know-- why did they not find more parts? I mean, I live near the area of the Swiss Air disaster in NS (St. Margaret's Bay) and so much stuff (and I won't get gory here but not just DNA et al but parts of the plane - and hitting the ocean is the same as hitting concrete) so where are the parts of Flight 93?

And why is American Airlines (and Air France) only now advertising that passengers can now use cell phones on planes?

I don't see a vast cover up but the US was unprepared even though they well knew in advance that some kind of disaster might happen so they may be well guilty of negligence. (Then again, this is the same country that killed Allende in Chile and seeks to oust Chavez).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
But as it stands, we have two competing theories, both of which have some physical evidence to support them, as well as some supporting evidence in the surrounding political circumstances and some precedent in history. I'm saying that taking everything into account, including the surrounding circumstances, the official theory still seems the most likely one.

---

What are you talking about? Taking everything into account? You haven't taken the minimal effort required to watch the movie or even visit a web site. It doesn't seem like you're taking much into account at all.

This mantra of yours (i don't need to hear the arguments to evaluate them) just seems surreal. I mean, you just keep saying it. Do you not find this kind of strange? That you keep using language like "taking everything into account" while asserting that it's not a priority to find out what you're talking about. If you kept saying, "I don't know the arguments, it could go either way," then that would be understandable. You keep replying with, "I don't know the arguments, the official story is most likely true."

But I'm not a scientist or someone with a background in structural engineering. Politics and history are areas I'm more familiar with. If I hear someone with technical knowledge provide their theory of what happened, I have to defer to their expertise to some extent, unless they have an apparent agenda, or unless their theory clashes with someone else's and I find that other person more credible for whatever reason. If they tell me the demolition theory is more plausible than the jet-fuel-fire-weakening-buildings-to-point-of-collapse theory, it's difficult for me to argue the physics of it with them. Although obviously I'll make an effort to understand, and to assess the information they provide and conclusions they draw, rather than accept them uncritically.

[ 04 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

Looks to me like too many on the left have already committed themselves to this implausibly cumbersome theory, despite the fact it's breaking down under new evidence. (maybe That was the plot, maybe Sgt.Goff is Still working for the government to discredit its critics....hmmm) Maybe the temptation to put All the evil of the world at the foot of one admittedly evil cabal, eliminating all other complicating ambiguities, was apparently too much for some otherwise good people to resist. One of the biggest flaws on the left. (released footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon BTW did in fact show a frame or two of the plane just before it hit and evaporated into flames, was flatly rejected anyhow despite its obvious importance)

[ 04 June 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
...(released footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon BTW did in fact show a frame or two of the plane just before it hit and evaporated into flames, was flatly rejected anyhow despite its obvious importance)

---

Unless something new has come out in the last 3 weeks*, the only footage anyone has seen has been the five-second blip that shows something in propulsion hitting the Pentagon and the initial explosion. If you see a "plane" in that footage, I would suggest you are telling yourself something you want to believe.

*Interestingly, on May 16th, I happened to see an American news show (CNN or Fox?) interviewing some kind of Republican senator or member of congress who was petitioning to get the rest of the footage released. His argument was that the conspiracy theories were raising too many questions and he felt that the White House should easily be able to put these speculations to rest with the release of the other footage. I did not hear the result of that effort. So what's in the rest of the footage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
Okay, perhaps we're talking past each other, then. I've being asking how the demolition theory could hold together in light of common-sense observations about the ability of people to keep secrets, the tendency for a simpler explanation to be more likely than a complex one, and the fact that jet airplanes did indeed hit both towers. And you're saying that you can't really reply to these questions until I see the movie and the website.

---

OK this is helpful because that's not what I meant to be saying.

Last night I was saying that you haven't examined the evidence and don't claim to--but that you keep using language like "taking everything into consideration." I was suggesting that your habit or use of language has been fooling you a bit. You haven't taken everything into consideration...and suggesting that you have is biasing how you feel about your knowledge of the issue.

And I haven't meant to be saying that i can't answer your questions until you see the movie. Partly I've tried to say that it takes a long time to write a long post. In this discussion i've gone through some of the different videos that I have looking for specific bits, then trying to google for pages displayed in the videos so that i can reference this. People are so quick to write off these theories that if something's not referenced it will be disregarded, so i try to be as complete as i can. This takes time, and i'm not feeling that it's worth my time to do all this when it's not worth your time to see the movie. It's frustrating.

Other than that it's not so much that I can't answer your questions but that you can't answer mine. I ask why building 7 collapsed, you say it was because buildings fell on it. So then I have to explain about where building 7 was located, how far away it was from the towers, details about how it fell. You can't answer my questions without me having to feed you the info, and it makes for a frustrating conversation.

quote:

---

(And perhaps at times I've phrased these questions at a level of generality too abstract for them to be answered, although I think I've been fairly specific at other times.)

---

So your 1st question is, why hasn't anyone come forward? People have. These movies are full of people making statements about what they saw or heard that conflicted with the official story. Maybe one of the reasons people go on about the demolition theory is that the day it happened, every news station was interviewing firefighters who were saying that they thought the building was wired with explosives.

No one has come forward saying they were ordered by their CIA chief or what have you to wire the buildings with explosives. I'm guessing that's because at that level there's a culture built around not coming forward. If they were the kind of people who come forward then they probably wouldn't get the job. And please note that I am not saying it was the CIA (i don't know), I just used that as an example.

Your second question was about simpler explanations being more likely true than complex explanations. Fine...what is the simple explanation for why building 7 fell? Because the government says that they don't know. How or why did the building collapse? But this is a dead end in our discussion, because you don't know enough about it. You don't know for yourself that it hasn't been explained so then we start talking about the towers again. I don't care about the towers. Why did building 7 collapse?

And I guess your third question was about why did they use plannes at all...why not just wire the buildings with explosives. Well on one hand we've got critics sneering at the bombs in the building theory, saying that it would be impossible to wire them up without people knowing (ignoring that many people claim that there was all kinds of unusual activity in the WTC in the weeks before). Then on the other hand, other critics are saying that it would've been easier to dispense with the planes and just blow up the buildings, as if terrorists with boxcutters could've entered and set up bombs all through the building with being seen on cameras.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:

Unless something new has come out in the last 3 weeks*, the only footage anyone has seen has been the five-second blip that shows something in propulsion hitting the Pentagon and the initial explosion. If you see a "plane" in that footage, I would suggest you are telling yourself something you want to believe.

---

And your witnessing of this frame or two is obviously evidence enough for all of us, so yeah, I guess I'm the arrogant one.