Did the Twin Towers collapse due to demolition?

[Mechagodzilla]

For one thing Steven E. Jones is a nuclear physics professor. What he is attempting to hypothesize is not even in his area of expertise. Just because you are a professor in one area of study does not make you an expert in all. You might as well ask your heart surgeon to operate on your brain. Hey he’s a doctor isn’t he?

Baxter.
Wins.
The thread.

I mean, look at 63's list of scholars to see how many of the professors work in domains relevant to the WTC investigation.

Irrelevant / No Domain Listed:

Folklore
Bioengineering
English Literature
Philosopher
______?
English
Philosophy
Psychohistory(?)
Microbiology and Immunology
Mathematician
Classics and Philosophy
Philosophy
Humanities
Cultural Studies
________?
History
Religion & Theology
Economics
Computer Science
Legal history
Instructional Psychology
Educational Leadership(?)
English and theatre
Economics
Linguistics
Literature and Humanities
Statistical Research
English as a Foreign Language
Philosophy
Theatre
Education
Economics
Biology
Sociology
Social Work
Political Science
Humanities
Economics
_______?
Philosophy
Accounting
Philosophy and political science
Software engineering
Creative Arts
Neuropsychology

Possibly Relevant:

Four Physicists (Note: one of them is Jones, who is a nuclear physicist and therefore not actually relevant - which calls the rest into question.)
One Mechanical Engineer (Note: not a structural engineer, but he might have something to with planes?)
One Aeronautical Engineer (Again, nothing to do with buildings. Or fire temperatures, for that matter.)

And that's just the founding members!
I did exclude the non-professors, since that's off the topic. But they do have one guy who lists himself as "Architect". What sort of architect and whether he knows anything about skyscrapers isn't mentioned.
Notice how many professors of psychology, english and theatre there are, in comparison to how many professors of "anything to do with buildings" there are.

F-F-F-Failure!

 

[63]

http://www.icq.com/groups/browse_folder.php?tid=4489

Here is a forum for discussing alien abduction it has 261 members........so it must be true

I am not saying it is true. He wanted a name, I gave him a list.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah but you didn't read the list, man.

In the first several score of names, at least, there are a total of three physicists who are potentially involved in relevant fields of science.

Looking at it again, only one physicist (who isn't a founding member) has a Ph.D. And he's from the same Church of JC university as Jones up there.

 

[63]

Yeah but you didn't read the list, man.

In the first several dozen names, at least, there are a total of three physicists who are potentially involved in relevant fields of science.

Guess you guys misunderstood me...

I was not posting the list with the intent of "hah take these names I own you", I was merely providing an answer to his question of "name of a single scientist that supports this man" - thats it.

I agree with you on that most of the people on that list are just fillers. Its like saying we should all skip work on Monday because Ted from Safeway likes the idea.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

Four Physicists (Note: one of them is Jones, who is a nuclear physicist and therefore not actually relevant - which calls the rest into question.)
One Mechanical Engineer (Note: not a structural engineer, but he might have something to with planes?)
One Aeronautical Engineer (Again, nothing to do with buildings. Or fire temperatures, for that matter.)

Obviously these are Black Mesa scientists. :rolling:

The theory the Twin Towers where switched out with rubble by the Combine just got more proof!

 

[Yuri]

The horse is dead, Rando! Stop beating it, please.

 

[baxter]

Guess you guys misunderstood me...

I was not posting the list with the intent of "hah take these names I own you", I was merely providing an answer to his question of "name of a single scientist that supports this man" - thats it.

I agree with you on that most of the people on that list are just fillers. Its like saying we should all skip work on Monday because Ted from Safeway likes the idea.

I didn't take it that way at all and was actually quite surprised that anybody would produce such a list so quickly. At face value when you look at a list like this, it does seem quite credible and believable that this man has a great deal of support, almost univeral.But when you break this list down, as Mecha did, it is quite apparent that this group does not represent the scientific community.

Bearing in mind that the NIST and FEMA reports went out to, not only the US but the entire world. I can only imagine that if you were to compile a list of scientists, structural engineers or professors that work in this field who agree with these reports it would simply go of the scale.
Simply imagine one of these guys reading this report in Russia, China, Germany ect and not agreeing with it, can you imagine they would keep quite.

The list that you have put forward does not add any credibility to this guys claims nor does it alter the fact that not a single qualified professor anywhere in the world as corroborated his findings. It does not alter the fact that not a single scientific journal will touch this theory nor does it alter the fact to have any credibility at all it would simply require the most elaborate and mind blowing conspiracy even.

You will never find this guys theory anywhere, other than on the net or if you happened to come across one of his lectures one day as he tries to promote his book.

It simply boils down to two options; do you believe this guy and all that goes with his theories, or do you believe common sense and the vast majority of the scientific community.

 

[OvA]

You know, I equate this sort of bull-f*cking-shit to Holocaust denying. I really feel sick.

Did any of you watch the planes fly in? Any single one of you moronish motherf*ckers? Were you there, in NYC, when they flew INTO the buildings?

I wasn't. You weren't. But a few of my friends were. One in particular.

If I could see any of you, I would spit in your eyes. I don't give a flying f*ck how many extra grey pixels were on the bottom of the planes. I don't give a flying f*ck about why you people think you can "prove" that buildings don't fall down like that. I don't give a flying f*ck why the Pentagon took away any photos of the plane that flew into it (because, out of all the goddamn crackpot theories, that one is the most obviously stupid) You all make me sick, and I was NOT just kidding with my post earlier. I will laugh on the day that a plane lands straight on your face so I can say that you were killed in a controlled demolition conspiracy.

Thousands of people died, and all you assholes can say is that "Bush did it LOL!" None of the evidence I have ever seen comes anything close to being incriminating. Which leads me to believe that if you spew this shit out your mouth, you're an attention-seeking piece of dog shit.

Bitter much?

But alas, you are correct. Solaris and his posse deserve to be goatsefied.

 

[Yuri]

This particular "conspiracy" really just pisses me off. A real, real lot.

 

[Raziaar]

Bitter much?

But alas, you are correct. Solaris and his posse deserve to be goatsefied.

---|}( o ){|---

Okay, so it sucks. so what.

 

[OvA]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Times_goatse.JPG

 

[baxter]

This particular "conspiracy" really just pisses me off. A real, real lot.

This conspiracy pisses off the majority. It is totally groundless and the biggest pisser of it all is that people buy into it. People actually write books about this crap and unbelievably people buy them, read them and believe they have found the Holy Grail.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

As I've said in the previous thread(s), conspiracy theory is the newest religion.
There is no other explanation for why people would exchange the essentially unanimous support of the scientific community for the the evidence-less guesswork of a nuclear physicist from Jesus U and his crack team of computer software technicians and philosophy majors.

I can't think of a single thing that differentiates conspiracy theories from run-of-the-mill religious beliefs.
If there's one good thing that has come out of this, it's actually the insight this gives into how religions must have appeared back in the past when there was no science at all.

I just can't wait until this generation of wonderkinds grows up rejecting the the basic elements of science in all aspects of their lives. Sales of email-solicited penis enlargement products are going to skyrocket.

 

[bigburpco]

This thread is about as stupid as WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

 

[MiccyNarc]

It's good to know that only 23% of this forum are complete idiots.

 

[Spectre01]

It's good to know that only 23% of this forum are complete idiots.

And the other 77% believe everything the manipulated media tells them.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Yes, because those are the only two points of view possible.

 

[Glirk Dient]

And the other 77% believe everything the manipulated media tells them.

And by manipulated media you must mean common sense and science.

Just because the media reports on it doesn't mean we have to believe what they are saying is false and fabricate theories based on ignorance of physics and science in general.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I seriously think we're regressing into another Dark Ages.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I was going to say that exact phrase in my last post.

The combined spread of nutzo ultra-religion on the right and the popularity of unquestioned conspiracy theories on the left is leading to an outright rejection of pretty much every major societal breakthrough made since 1300 or so.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Did any of you watch the planes fly in? Any single one of you moronish motherf*ckers? Were you there, in NYC, when they flew INTO the buildings?

I wasn't. You weren't. But a few of my friends were. One in particular.

Right, so what makes what you believe, anymore valid than what we believe? Your in the same goddamn boat. So instead of sooking, how about you consider why we would think differently?

Thousands of people died, and all you assholes can say is that "Bush did it LOL!" None of the evidence I have ever seen comes anything close to being incriminating. Which leads me to believe that if you spew this shit out your mouth, you're an attention-seeking piece of dog shit.

And what evidence have you seen that isn't incriminating? Thousands of people die EVERYDAY. And usually its due to YOUR country and its capitlism. Maybe if you weren't so out of tune with reality, this event and this consipiracy wouldn't come as a shock to you. stop sitting infront of the goddamn idiot box all day watching fox news and soap operas and believe all the shit it feeds you. Wake up, the media is a propaganda device. The mainstream, the statis quo is there to control you and your opinions. It's time to deviate sunshine. Hell the fact that all these people died is the REASON why this event should be scrutinized this much. The fact that your rejecting this issue with such haste and fury is an insult to all the people that may have died in vain.

But no, your a zit faced media induced zombie drone that channels all it's hate to the source the media directs it too. To the 'terrorists' to the 'Taliban' to 'Saddam Hussein'.

What about all the shit the media doesnt tell you? Like the nations America terrorises?
ok lets see:

Panama
Nicaragua
Haiti
Germany
Japan
Cuba
Vietnam
Iraq

The list goes on, and Im only citing the terrorist acts america has directly advocated itself in. Dont even get me started on the amount of terrorism america has supported. Hell, they've even supported Alkayda in the 1980s. That's fact. That's history. America infact is one of the only countries that has been incrimnated for terrorism by international courts. It's also one of the only countries that doesnt recognise international courts.

My point is, If you arent a goddamn media drone, and are aware of the many crimes america have committed, then you wouldn't be so suprised about what happened, and the possibility of this 'conspiriacy theory'.

If you look at it from a purely historic and contextual perspective, its probably more believeable that america orchestrated the whole thing. Hell, the whole terroists flying into the towers sound like a conspiracy. Think about it, some 'bad guy' terrorits trained secretly to hijack and fly airplanes into various 'good guy' american buildings. It sounds like a goddamn fairytale for chrissake. Reality isnt the movies. Its much more complicated and complex.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I seriously think we're regressing into another Dark Ages.

-Angry Lawyer

I think its more of a caveman age that we are regressing towards.

 

[Yuri]

I don't need to prove my point. My point has already been proven by everyone with any sort of a functioning brain. Its been proven by common sense, any form of media coverage, the terrorists who claimed responsibility, and any credible human being.

I don't give a shit what the media "doesn't tell me." That has NOTHING to do with 9-11.

When you start saying shit like missiles were attached to the planes, stuff like the towers were demolished with explosions or something else, then you have to have some sort of evidence to disprove what is already known. I've looked at all this evidence-- none of it makes any sense. The motive doesn't even make sense, let alone the methods in which this grand "conspiracy" was conjured.

I'm not in your boat. Your boat can't stay afloat in anything. We aren't even in the same goddamn ocean.

 

[Raziaar]

I think its more of a caveman age that we are regressing towards.

Yep. Cavemen believed in crazy things too. They thought their friendly neighbor tribes orchestrated the pterodactyl suicide attacks on their caves.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I don't need to prove my point. My point has already been proven by everyone with any sort of a functioning brain. Its been proven by common sense, any form of media coverage, the terrorists who claimed responsibility, and any credible human being.

a)Just because everybody believes something is true does not make it true. i.e, people believed the world was at the center of the universe. This was not true. To them, the idea of the earth being in orbit around the sun was a conspiracy punishable by death.

b)Media coverage is not common sense. It is propaganda designed to sway public decent in favour of the dominant institutions of our times.

Thus, the factors that have proven your point are illegitamate, Hence your point fails.

I don't give a shit what the media "doesn't tell me." That has NOTHING to do with 9-11.

It has everything to do with 9-11. What you know about the event is determined by the media. You know what it tells you. Hence, your decision is undoubtedly determined by what the media does and does not tell you.

When you start saying shit like missiles were attached to the planes, stuff like the towers were demolished with explosions or something else, then you have to have some sort of evidence to disprove what is already known. I've looked at all this evidence-- none of it makes any sense. The motive doesn't even make sense, let alone the methods in which this grand "conspiracy" was conjured.

a)The motive doesnt make sense, because you depend on the media to
provide historical and social context. Something it barely achieves to do at all. My previous post stated, that if you take these contexts into account, the motives make alot of sense.

b)You haven't looked at ALL the evidence. You looked at a couple of inconsistancies that do not fit with the original story or 9-11. These inconsistances are something that your are hasitly, and emotionally dismissing due to your inability to fathom anything different from what the media tells you.

I'm not in your boat. Your boat can't stay afloat in anything. We aren't even in the same goddamn ocean.

This analogy was intended to denote that we were in the same situation in anaylising and scrutinizing the event. However, as you have taken it to mean we are not on the same level of intelligence, I will correct this analogy by informing you that not only has the boat your on sunk long ago, but that you and your boat have become the biomass that has been fossilised through sedimentation and compressed by geological forces to become the oil on which my supersonic jet runs off.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He is not unreasonable.

Your claims require evidence, otherwise they are not scientifically valid.
Scientifically invalid claims are dismissed in exchange for scientifically valid claims.
That is how our society works.

In the real world, people don't dismiss something because they can't understand it.
No-one sane ever threw their car away because science couldn't prove it wasn't powered by demons.
Without evidence, you are just another old man yelling at the clouds.

Creationists use the exact same tactics as your "9/11 truth" movements.
You have provided no reason to be taken any more seriously.

In fact, your outright rejection of well over 500 years of progress in scientific philosophy show that you are even less credible.
At least the creationists understand the system enough to exploit it.
You have no such benefit.


Take, for example, your claim that the media a lying.
There is no valid reason to believe this.
It is merely another in a long list of religious beliefs mandated by your Internet bible.

 

[Captain M4d]

It was obviously bunga.

 

[Yuri]

a)Just because everybody believes something is true does not make it true. i.e, people believed the world was at the center of the universe. This was not true. To them, the idea of the earth being in orbit around the sun was a conspiracy punishable by death.

Don't compare yourself to Galileo. God, I hate it when people do that.

I don't believe that 9-11 was caused by terrorists flew planes into the WTC "just because everyone else thinks so." I believe, rather know this is the case because there is no proof otherwise, because I watched it with my own eyes, and because there are thousands of tapes proving that this happened.

b)Media coverage is not common sense. It is propaganda designed to sway public decent in favour of the dominant institutions of our times.

Thus, the factors that have proven your point are illegitamate, Hence your point fails.

Say that to someone who watched it happen, dude. Someone who was there, watching it happen.

Not all media is propaganda. Especially media based on something so close to home. As in, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. Sure, you can argue that media all over is biased and "propagandous" in some way, but not in this case. Not in the case of something this large. Are you suggesting that the "government conspirators" somehow got a stranglehold on the media, and somehow controls it? On the contrary, I would think that if there was actually any credible evidence that supported the idea that 9-11 was fake... that every news station in the world would be scrounging all over it. But they aren't, are they?

It has everything to do with 9-11. What you know about the event is determined by the media. You know what it tells you. Hence, your decision is undoubtedly determined by what the media does and does not tell you.

Were you there? No? Were people I know very well there? Yes? Stop bringing media into this, thanks.

a)The motive doesnt make sense, because you depend on the media to
provide historical and social context. Something it barely achieves to do at all. My previous post stated, that if you take these contexts into account, the motives make alot of sense.

b)You haven't looked at ALL the evidence. You looked at a couple of inconsistancies that do not fit with the original story or 9-11. These inconsistances are something that your are hasitly, and emotionally dismissing due to your inability to fathom anything different from what the media tells you.

Are you saying you looked at "all" the evidence?

You're acting like I'm some kind of mind-controlled robot simply because no one has yet to have any credible evidence that 9-11 wasn't caused by terrorists in planes. You're also acting as if you're some high-powered informational all-knowing god. Frankly, if I wasn't so offended by your inability to respect human life, I would laugh.

This analogy was intended to denote that we were in the same situation in anaylising and scrutinizing the event. However, as you have taken it to mean we are not on the same level of intelligence, I will correct this analogy by informing you that not only has the boat your on sunk long ago, but that you and your boat have become the biomass that has been fossilised through sedimentation and compressed by geological forces to become the oil on which my supersonic jet runs off.

I don't generally mock people on their political, religions, or social views. I understand if you are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, if you support Iraq or Bush, and if you believe some dude made Adam and Eve. But this whole bunch of bullshit offends me, if you haven't noticed. And not without just cause, either. Just cuz you think its so cool to think 9-11 was a conspiracy and all this "evidence" you keep bringing forward is somehow credible, doesn't mean you should blab your uneducated mouth around. Its not exactly your ignorance and stupidity that is offensive... Its how you ignore the fact that many, many people died for something you think is some sort of joke.





And hey, you didn't really address my point very well!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The self-aggrandizing comparision with Galileo is especially disgusting when you realize that Galileo was persecuted for the using of scientific analysis and logic over unfounded religious beliefs.

Conspiracy theorists like >>>Frendzy<<< are directly hostile to the scientific principles of that Galileo used in his conclusions.

Or, more specifically, there is less evidence that the towers were bombed than there was that the world was flat.
The demolition religion is comparatively insane, because we don't live in a world of religious persecution and institutional ignorance.
We live in a world where we (should have) learned from the church's mistake hundreds of years ago.

>>>>>Frendzy<<<<< fails at that lesson, by rejecting science and logic in exchange for the implausible theory that require a belief in a governmental god-force.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

He is not unreasonable.

Your claims require evidence, otherwise they are not scientifically valid.
Scientifically invalid claims are dismissed in exchange for scientifically valid claims.
That is how our society works.

In the real world, people don't dismiss something because they can't understand it.
No-one sane ever threw their car away because science couldn't prove it wasn't powered by demons.
Without evidence, you are just another old man yelling at the clouds.

Creationists use the exact same tactics as your "9/11 truth" movements.
You have provided no reason to be taken any more seriously.

In fact, your outright rejection of well over 500 years of progress in scientific philosophy show that you are even less credible.
At least the creationists understand the system enough to exploit it.
You have no such benefit.


Take, for example, your claim that the media a lying.
There is no valid reason to believe this.
It is merely another in a long list of religious beliefs mandated by your Internet bible.

how about you present some scietific evidence that the towers did collapase due to jets flying into them? Without that evidence, isnt what your saying just as ludicrous as what Im saying?

And Im not a conspiriacy theorist, I just think that the towers falling down due to controlled demolition is not as ridicoulus as it sounds, especially when you consider americas historical and ecconomical contexts.

 

[Yuri]

how about you present some scietific evidence that the towers did collapase due to jets flying into them? Without that evidence, isnt what your saying just as ludicrous as what Im saying?

And Im not a conspiriacy theorist, I just think that the towers falling down due to controlled demolition is not as ridicoulus as it sounds, especially when you consider americas historical and ecconomical contexts.

Did you read through this thread at all, and the other one in Politics? Mecha must have unneccesarily proven that the towers fell due to the jets at least 20 times.

And no, there is NO need to prove that the towers fell down because of the jets. One simple reason: Why else did the towers fall down other than the jets?

We have this as evidence:

-Jets flew into the ****ing towers, everyone watched, the media had no way of altering that
-The towers fell down

Unless you prove that the towers fell down for some other reason than the blatent, obvious one-- that the jets flew in, then were going to go ahead and say *gasp* it was the planes!




So, take this as an example:

You watch Joe eat an apple.

Someone says "Sally ate it!"

You say "Prove it, I just watched Joe eat it!"

They say "Look at this gritty picture of Sally two years ago in Hawaii and another picture of some eggnog. Also the schizophrenic dude across the street wrote this 10 page paper on Sally and how she ate that apple. Also, Sally likes apples!"

You say "No, sorry, I'm pretty sure that Joe ate the apple. Go away."

 

[63]

You seem to be obsessing over the visuals of what happened. Nobody is denying that planes flew into the towers...

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Don't compare yourself to Galileo. God, I hate it when people do that.

I don't believe that 9-11 was caused by terrorists flew planes into the WTC "just because everyone else thinks so." I believe, rather know this is the case because there is no proof otherwise, because I watched it with my own eyes, and because there are thousands of tapes proving that this happened.

Im not denying the planes didnt fly into the towers. Im speculating on the implications of what happened, and who is responsible.

Not all media is propaganda. Especially media based on something so close to home. As in, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. Sure, you can argue that media all over is biased and "propagandous" in some way, but not in this case. Not in the case of something this large. Are you suggesting that the "government conspirators" somehow got a stranglehold on the media, and somehow controls it? On the contrary, I would think that if there was actually any credible evidence that supported the idea that 9-11 was fake... that every news station in the world would be scrounging all over it. But they aren't, are they?

It a well known fact, that the media in america are owned by five major corporations. It's also well known that these same corporations are the main funders of the Bush campaign. Considering there close relations with the government and stranglehold over the government, it is very plausable to believe that what is said, how it is said, and what is shown on the media are fabricated in away that benefits these corporations and the Bush administration.

Are you saying you looked at "all" the evidence?

You're acting like I'm some kind of mind-controlled robot simply because no one has yet to have any credible evidence that 9-11 wasn't caused by terrorists in planes. You're also acting as if you're some high-powered informational all-knowing god. Frankly, if I wasn't so offended by your inability to respect human life, I would laugh.

I don't generally mock people on their political, religions, or social views. I understand if you are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, if you support Iraq or Bush, and if you believe some dude made Adam and Eve. But this whole bunch of bullshit offends me, if you haven't noticed. And not without just cause, either. Just cuz you think its so cool to think 9-11 was a conspiracy and all this "evidence" you keep bringing forward is somehow credible, doesn't mean you should blab your uneducated mouth around. Its not exactly your ignorance and stupidity that is offensive... Its how you ignore the fact that many, many people died for something you think is some sort of joke.

no I havent looked at all the evidence, but neither have you. As I have seen about the same as you have seen, I am speculating as to what happened. You maintain that what happened was as you saw it and heard it from others and the media. I do not maintain that, instead I draw from americas historical context and the ecconomical context of this event to make my speculations about what happened. And drawing from these I do not believe it is ridiculous that these towers may have been caused by a controlled demolition.

Furthermore, I do not think these people dieing is a joke. I don't see how, my willingless to speculate and claim that the towers may have been caused by controlled demolition is at all disrespectful to those who have died. I think that those who died would be supporting my inquiry as to what happened and why.

You should also understand, that america is not the only one who has suffered an atrocity like this. Three thousands deaths is an almost negiligable number compared to the death toll of other atrocities that have been carried out in the world, and it annoys me to think that a relatively few american lives should be so much more valuable than that of a nicarguain, yugoslavian or rwandan life.

 

[Yuri]

You seem to be obsessing over the visuals of what happened. Nobody is denying that planes flew into the towers...

I'm only stating that the visuals of what happened are the only thing that has even slightly been proven as of yet. Everything else has been "It sure does look like there as a bomb there, a-yep!" I have seen no credible evidence that supports that the towers fell for any other reason than what we all saw.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

A better analogy would be an exploding car.

Someone shoots a car and it explodes.

You'd automatically think that's because of the bullet and most likely the bullet rupturing the fuel tank.

You'd think that. It happens in the movies all the time, but rarely does it happen in reality.
There are circumstances that would allow it to happen, but a car bomb is not out of the question.

---
Scenario:
I'm driving along, someone takes out his 5 cal and caps my trunk area.
Situation:
My car is made of steel so strong not even the jaws of life can open the cabin. The engine is practically bulletproof.
The gas tank is molded plastic and resists fire. It was factory tested to resist fire for a long period of time.
Sparks ignite fuel, not pure heat or hot metal alone. Unless you've seen a demonstration of this, you might believe otherwise.

This situation is a little different, because I can provide proof of all these things at a moment's notice, but the Tower's no longer exist and there is a possibility evidence and facts can be tampered with, or to a less likely extent, replaced with fiction.
Many things are possible and it is not unnatural to question what is considered fact.

Side note: original generation Mustangs often went up in a blaze of fiery anti-glory from simple rear end collisions as their fuel tanks ruptured. No doubt a bullet could set them off.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

We have this as evidence:

-Jets flew into the ****ing towers, everyone watched, the media had no way of altering that
-The towers fell down

Unless you prove that the towers fell down for some other reason than the blatent, obvious one-- that the jets flew in, then were going to go ahead and say *gasp* it was the planes!

No, the blatently obvious thing, is that jets hit the world trade centers. I do not deny that. What I deny, is that the jets were the cause of the tradecenters collapsing. In order to determine the jets were the cause of the collapse, we require a fair bit of enginerring knowledge, knowledge on the speed at which the jets hit the WTCs, Knowledge on the structural integrity of the WTC, etc.

Now considereing the inconsistancies; Those being, the claims that the towers were built capable of resisting a 747 crashing into them, the witnesses that heard explosions, the controversial trading of stock in airline insurance just before the attacks, the controversial reports, the hauling of the evidence immediately after the event, The collapse of WTC 7 without any plane crashing into it, the structural reinforcement the pentagon recieved just before the attacks, the unusualy amount of time it took for the towers to collapse, etcetera etcetera, point to the fact that this event is not as simple as it seems. Unless, you, can scientifically explain or logically argue why these inconsistancies are appearing, then you cannot claim with confidence, that the WTCs collapsed due to the planes crashing into them.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

People questioned and failed because their questions are actually thinly-veiled pseudoscientific claims.
"Why is there evidence of ten tonnes of thermite??"
There is no such evidence.

People keep asking where the evidence is.
Why?
It's right here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

Not one whacked-out demolition theory has been able to provide that level of quality or detail in its refutation.

Basically, every scientist in the world who understands how science works agrees with this report.
Erestheux has pointed out that the facts found in the report support every element of the IRREFUTABLE live broadcasts.

Ignoring or dismissing this report based a handfull of scientifically invalid internet claims is the equivalent of saying ghosts inhabit your computer to make it speak words.

It is quantifiably stupid.

 

[kathaksung]

See what experts say. Not from government because they are the potential suspects.

Quote, "Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
(PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

.....
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

# # #
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
James Fetzer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5

 

[Raziaar]

<groans loudly>

 

[Yuri]

Did you even read the rest of this thread, you f*cking moron?