911 Truth Movement

[glantone]

Noam Chomsky nails it.

yeah, good post antman. What a wise old sage.

Attaching bombs to specific structural locations throughout the WT buildings seems an unnecessary risk to take by the conspirators when you already know a couple of jet liners piloted by Islamic lunatics on behalf of an Islamic terrorist organization are scheduled to plant themselves squarely into the upper floors of those towers.

Those acts alone would have provided the American gov with enough hate coupons to go to war against Australia if it held her responsible, netherlone highly unfashionable Afghanistan. If it aint broken .....

They did once knock off their own president though.

 

[Disco08]

The best point he makes is at the end in regards to circumstantial evidence and the fact that video snapshots of the world are often too complex to make definitive statements about. Conspiracy theorists thrive on that.

Where do you draw the line? 10 snapshots all pointing to the same thing? 100? 1000?

 

[evo]

*shrug*. Once it gained a little momentum, you'd expect it to fall straight down given gravity and the shortest route between two points is a straight line.

Personally I don't find it surprising that there a reasonable number of engineers who are willing to attest it was a controlled demolitions. Engineering, like any large proffession is going to have a number of outliers.
Engineers are not the sanest bunch at the best of times in my experience. ;D My dad is an engineer with all sorts of letters after his name and he'll argue with you for hours AGW is a scam.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'll agree that on the face of it Building 7's collapse and the Pentagon attack are the two incidents baaed on video evidence that draw the most questions. Still I simply can't see a calculated cold blooded killing of innocents in the name of supposed global domination. Those that were supposedly involved Bush etc. are hardly sitting in ivory towers right now if that was their intention. It just doesn't add up.

 

[evo]

Where do you draw the line?

Depends who you ask.

If you ask the Gnome he draws the line at language.

I'm a relativist, so if you ask me I'd say draw it wherever you want.

 

[Disco08]

Ha. Where do you think a reasonable place to draw that line is then?

*shrug*. Once it gained a little momentum, you'd expect it to fall straight down given gravity and the shortest route between two points is a straight line.

Personally I don't find it surprising that there a reasonable number of engineers who are willing to attest it was a controlled demolitions. Engineering, like any large proffession is going to have a number of outliers.
Engineers are not the sanest bunch at the best of times in my experience. ;D My dad is an engineer with all sorts of letters after his name and he'll argue with you for hours AGW is a scam.

Heh, yeah I know a couple too. Both big drinkers. Not sure decorations in engineering make him more expert than the next bloke (say Liverpool ;D ) where AGW is concerned.

On momentum, I disagree from my limited viewpoint. If there's 200 support columns running the length of the building, surely they all need to fail at much the same time to cause the top floors to freefall into their own footprint. If say 30 fail on one side surely the mass above them topples in their directions as the sound columns remain intact.

 

[Baloo]

On momentum, I disagree from my limited viewpoint. If there's 200 support columns running the length of the building, surely they all need to fail at much the same time to cause the top floors to freefall into their own footprint. If say 30 fail on one side surely the mass above them topples in their directions as the sound columns remain intact.

From my limited viewpoint, if the structures are all weakened due to the fires that were flamed by avgas, when a couple finally gave way then the weakened ones wouldn't be able to withstand the added force and they gave away as well.

Like evo said, gravity ensures the quickest way is straight down.

 

[Disco08]

That it does as long as there is no resistance. For that to happen all support columns have to fail at the same time, or be weakened enough to fail as a result of pressure from other failures. When the fire was concentrated at certain points (as the NIST report states) it seems to me those support columns not subject to such stress should have remained structurally sound given they were designed to withstand these events in the first place.

 

[Baloo]

The amount of people that had to be in in the conspiracy to pull it off makes it near impossible for it to be real.

They want to ensure there was no paper trail of what they were doing, even electronic paper. Last thing they'd want is Wikileaks to get hold of it, or any whistle blower.

Everyone involved in killing thousands of innocent countrymen would need to have no conscience to be able to a) go through with it and b) until today not expose what happened.

The US manufactured a war in Iraq so if the supposed power brokers wanted a war, they got one without WTC.

The US weren't able to plant any evidence against Saddam. Sort of implies they'd struggle to plant explosions in the WTC without anyone knowing.

From my limited reading, none of the "Truth" (the irony of the name is amusing) advocates are people that would have been close to where decisions were made to pull off the supposed government involvement.

It's as likely as ID if you ask me.

 

[Baloo]

That it does as long as there is no resistance. For that to happen all support columns have to fail at the same time, or be weakened enough to fail as a result of pressure from other failures. When the fire was concentrated at certain points (as the NIST report states) it seems to me those support columns not subject to such stress should have remained structurally sound given they were designed to withstand these events in the first place.

I wouldn't have a clue really. The official reports are widely accepted by the vast majority of experts around the world so who am I to second guess them.

 

[Disco08]

Are they? That's the point as I see it, plenty of qualified experts don't accept the NIST report.

The amount of people that had to be in in the conspiracy to pull it off makes it near impossible for it to be real.

They want to ensure there was no paper trail of what they were doing, even electronic paper. Last thing they'd want is Wikileaks to get hold of it, or any whistle blower.

Everyone involved in killing thousands of innocent countrymen would need to have no conscience to be able to a) go through with it and b) until today not expose what happened.

The US manufactured a war in Iraq so if the supposed power brokers wanted a war, they got one without WTC.

The US weren't able to plant any evidence against Saddam. Sort of implies they'd struggle to plant explosions in the WTC without anyone knowing.

From my limited reading, none of the "Truth" (the irony of the name is amusing) advocates are people that would have been close to where decisions were made to pull off the supposed government involvement.

It's as likely as ID if you ask me.

ID is directly disproved by the thoery of evolution and the evidence that supports it. Furthermore ID proponents present their entire theory as fact. 9/11 conspiracy theorists in general are only pointing out that evidence exists that doesn't support the official version of events and that that evidence needs explaining. Most are not offering an alternate theory off as fact.

 

[evo]

Ha. Where do you think a reasonable place to draw that line is then?

It's too vague to answer. It is a complex event so there is bound to be many seemingly strange inconsistencies.

Don't get me wrong, I've find this particular conspiracy theory really interesting - I've watched every truther doco made. I just think the demolition theory lacks plausibility. As far as just letting the planes crash into WTCs goes, if we one day find out that was true I wouldn't bel surprised, but even that is probably unlikely.

Bringing the WTCs down just seems totally unecssary. Over the years U.S governments have shown they don't really need an excuse to invade other countries, they just do it and let the media make their arguments for them post hoc. why bother with elaborate and easily detectable plots like wiring two entire skyscrapers?

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, dunno. I like to apply my favourite saying here: "I wouldn't put anything past anybody". If there's evidence there that needs explaining, lets study it so we can explain it. Whether that points to completely illogical conspiracies or not we still need to have the truth given the number of people whose lives were destroyed as a result.

 

[Baloo]

Are they? That's the point as I see it, plenty of qualified experts don't accept the NIST report.

That goes back to my first point on this debate. What's plenty in these terms ? 2000 might seem like a lot but if the expert base is 100,000 then that's only 2% of experts who think there is more too it. It doesn't discount their views but I'm not educated enough to take sides so I'll go with the view that 98%, or whatever % the vast majority are, hold which is the official report makes sense.

 

[evo]

Whether that points to completely illogical conspiracies or not we still need to have the truth given the number of people whose lives were destroyed as a result.

you want the truth? you can't handle the truth![/ Nicholson]

I've read a couple of reasonably coherent arguments that Alex Jones is actually a plant working for the government. Wouldn't that be cool?

 

[Disco08]

That goes back to my first point on this debate. What's plenty in these terms ? 2000 might seem like a lot but if the expert base is 100,000 then that's only 2% of experts who think there is more too it. It doesn't discount their views but I'm not educated enough to take sides so I'll go with the view that 98%, or whatever % the vast majority are, hold which is the official report makes sense.

You don't know what percentage of the other 98000 actually support the official view though. There's no list or petition is there? You need to think about motivation. Why would the average architect or engineer look into it deeply enough to feel compelled to sign such a petition? What percentage of these people can you reasonably expect to spend that amount of time studying it? What percentage of these people will disregard it purely because it's a conspiracy theory or becuase it's unpatriotic?

2000 is a very significant figure given they are all degreed and mostly licensed so all have sound knowledge of the principles being discussed.

 

[Baloo]

If there was something to it I'd expect a lot more people, especially those outside of the US, to be a lot more vocal about it. 2000 "experts" is a small number really when you look at how many architects and engineers there are in the world.

As for their qualifications, you'd need to double check them before accepting they are qualified. The climate change debate taught me that the label scientist and expert can be grown around willy nilly.

In summary, there isn't enough dissection from the expert associations, bodies etc to make me think there is anything more than meets the eye.

Then there is the question of why when it comes to WTC7. What purpose did it serve to blow it up when the two big towers had already come down ? Why was it so important for the conspiracy that they would risk doing it in a manner that might reveal their Dr Evil plans ? Makes no sense at all.

 

[snaps truly]

why bother with elaborate and easily detectable plots like wiring two entire skyscrapers?

I'm not sure, but didn't the new owner of the WTC complex, whatshisname Silverstine, just have approved a terrorist attack clause on the insurance? I believe he gained $3.5 billion out of it after originally being awarded 4.5 billion (he tried to claim for two attacks initially).

 

[Disco08]

If there was something to it I'd expect a lot more people, especially those outside of the US, to be a lot more vocal about it. 2000 "experts" is a small number really when you look at how many architects and engineers there are in the world.

As for their qualifications, you'd need to double check them before accepting they are qualified. The climate change debate taught me that the label scientist and expert can be grown around willy nilly.

In summary, there isn't enough dissection from the expert associations, bodies etc to make me think there is anything more than meets the eye.

Then there is the question of why when it comes to WTC7. What purpose did it serve to blow it up when the two big towers had already come down ? Why was it so important for the conspiracy that they would risk doing it in a manner that might reveal their Dr Evil plans ? Makes no sense at all.

They list all the signatories and their qualification so I'd assume they're being honest. They also have a section for other non qualified people to sign.]

Associations aren't likely to, as a group, question the government given they rely on funding etc. The fact that many of the signatories would belong to these associations should be grounds enough to at least take their concerns seriously.

Money (greed) is usually the motivation for such acts and some of Larry Silverstein's actions on the day are peculiar to say the least.

Finally many people are very vocal about it still, 11 years later. It's not a small movement.

 

[Baloo]

Associations aren't likely to, as a group, question the government given they rely on funding etc. The fact that many of the signatories would belong to these associations should be grounds enough to at least take their concerns seriously.

Do professional associations rely on Government funding ? What about the professional associations that are not based in the US, why would they care ?

Money (greed) is usually the motivation for such acts and some of Larry Silverstein's actions on the day are peculiar to say the least.

So there is no stand out reason why WTC7 should have been blown up ? I wouldn't be surprised if Silverstein started looking at how he could make the most of a bad situation when it all started happening on land he owned. While morally reprehensible to be more concerned about how he could make the most of the situation, it doesn't point to him instigating anything.

Finally many people are very vocal about it still, 11 years later. It's not a small movement.

I reckon there are more people vocal about ID than there are about WTC conspiracies. That doesn't make them right.