Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

[Eg.]

The insurance contract was just re-doing a previous contract, no one made any money from it collapsing. The pentagon was in thbe middle of an update that would require reconstruction of every segment of the building, and at that time, that section had just been updated.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Hooray for baxter! I hope he's not going to be ignored.

The likelihood of every single scientist involved in this thing being so malicious as to not tell when hundreds of freaking thermite charges were exploding the building is dumb.

It's a point I made about ten pages earlier in this thread: the human element of the conspiracy here is about as close to impossibly illogical as it can get.

Without the humans, there are no bombs.

Without bombs, the conspiracy theory sinks.

the pentagon installed reinforced building material days before the attacks.

If the attacks were intentional, why would they hamper themselves?
Frig, not every event that occured in september 2001 is a link to a conspiracy.

ON SEPTENBERT TEHNTH, I HEAR A MAN BOUGHT A FOOTTSBALL HEMLET
COULD HE HAV BEEN IN THE CONSPIRACEY TOO?

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

It actually a fact that the US knew about the oncoming september attacks and did nothing about them....It's just not publicly known. Various intelligence agiences, including the israeli intelligence agency informed the US about the impending september 11 attacks however they chose to ignore them.

What I don't get is why these 'conspiracy theories' are so unnacceptable to you people. I mean is it really that unbeliavable that george bush may have blew up the twin towers as a ploy to invade iraq and launch an aggresive foreign policy? A few lives lost for the greater good of america. It's quite a logical thing to do.

 

[NotATool]

I mean is it really that unbeliavable that george bush may have blew up the twin towers as a ploy to invade iraq and launch an aggresive foreign policy? A few lives lost for the greater good of america. It's quite a logical thing to do.

The loss caused by September 11th was much more than "a few lives." The World Trade Center is exactly that.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

the world trade center was exactly what?

 

[NotATool]

the world trade center was exactly what?

A World Trade Center!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What I don't get is why these 'conspiracy theories' are so unnacceptable to you people. I mean is it really that unbeliavable that george bush may have blew up the twin towers as a ploy to invade iraq and launch an aggresive foreign policy? A few lives lost for the greater good of america. It's quite a logical thing to do.

How in the hell does that make logical sense at all?

Jimminy Christmas, it is like I am in a crazy world where the whole scientific revolution and the concepts of empiricism, skepticism and rationalism never happened.

A: Osama took the blame, so the Iraq plan makes no sense.

B: The same people who supposedly choreographed the most well-documented event in recent memory failed at making the exceedingly simple fake Iraq evidence.

C: There is no way in hell that Bush managed to convince many thousands of random people to unquestioningly commit mass murder (and murder-suicides) against their own country in exchange for next to no payoff.
It is basically impossible.

D: Duh.

E: If the idea was purely to make terrorists look scary, why bother even hitting the pentagon?

F: How exactly did they convince al Queda to agree to all this?

 

[Glirk Dient]

It actually a fact that the US knew about the oncoming september attacks and did nothing about them....It's just not publicly known. Various intelligence agiences, including the israeli intelligence agency informed the US about the impending september 11 attacks however they chose to ignore them.

What I don't get is why these 'conspiracy theories' are so unnacceptable to you people. I mean is it really that unbeliavable that george bush may have blew up the twin towers as a ploy to invade iraq and launch an aggresive foreign policy? A few lives lost for the greater good of america. It's quite a logical thing to do.

Yeah it sounds like complete lunacy because there is no evidence to support it. All your doing is coming up with a story and saying it must be true because you cant figure out why this would happen or theres only a small chance of this happening so GWB must have killed americans!

It is just funny to us. You can't prove something without evidence. Just because you watch a video that show and explains a few un answered questions doesn't make something true.

Again with your logic...you figure a few lives lost for the greater good is alright? Since when was something worse than 9/11 present and those killed in 9/11 were considered the few that died for the greater good? You need to stop talking, your just being dumb.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I don't think Bush had anything to do with it.

diesel fuel, which was being stored in WC7 does not emit that much smoke, and burns longer. if the central core of a building burns out, or melts, then it will collapse thusly. my dad works with the dept of buildings in new york, as i have said before in this thread. really its easy to understand the report if you have just a meager amount of technical knowledge.

It seems odd that there would be diesel fuel stored inside the building.
Matter of fact that is outright ridiculous, even if it was being used for heaters. Can you verify this?
My bet is it doesn't burn hot enough to matter but I'm still looking into it's properties.

 

[UltraProAnti]

Its a mess, all I know right now is Raziaar is ignoring the WTC 7 building case. where conventional fire apparently cause a demolition like collapse.

uh, actually demo caused a demo-like collapse. larry silverstein, the WTC complex's owner, told a PBS interviewer that he had conferred with the FDNY and the order had been given to "pull" WTC7. the video of him saying so is pretty widely available, so i'm surprised the collapse of WTC7 is still a mystery to so many people

btw i haven't read the whole thread so someone may already have pointed this out. sorry if that's the case

 

[UltraProAnti]

I'm always surprised how the government can never seem to find its ass with both hands, but its somehow able to pull off all these incredibly capers.

But, seriously. Its always been my conclusion that theres so many variables in an event that is so huge as a building collapsing, that theres so much room for error its unbelievable. Convinving evidence will have to be direct and unquestionable, not inferred.

so, why does evidence of an inside job have to be "direct and unquestionable" while the 'evidence' presented for the official conspiracy theory about 19 guys with boxcutters is fine, even when riddled with holes and flatly contradicted by a good deal of that evidence?

there's no onus on anyone who believes the official story doesn't stack up to bring a fully worked-out alternative explanation to the table. they just have to show how the evidence doesn't support the official story - and it clearly doesn't

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Explain how. In one post, in detail.

And try to keep posting many random links to a minimum. Quote relevant information instead of distracting with massive chunks of text.

If the evidence "clearly" adds up, that should be more than sufficient to prove your case.

And use the scientific method when you write.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

 

[UltraProAnti]

Explain how. In one post, in detail.

i'll stick to the pentagon strike. the official 9-11 story is four-legged, so pulling away one leg ought to be enough to make the rest pretty unsteady

* 'plane' approaches pentagon from north, makes a tight 330deg turn which 757 pilots say is impossible without stalling (and the alleged pilot is apparently a below-average pilot according to his flight school), and slams by sheer coincidence into the section of the pentagon undergoing renovation and virtually unoccupied

* according to the official theory (henceforth OT) the plane bounces off the llawn outside but no skid marks or debris are to be seen in any of the photos

* no wreckage of wings, tail or engines are visible in the photos. the one piece of wreckage that IS visible - a fan - is claimed to be part of the 757's APU from the tail section, but the 'plane's manufacturers say it isn't

* no bodies, seats or luggage are visible in any of the photos from inside or out

* OT has it that the absence of wreckage is due to the plane 'evaporating' in the intense heat of the explosion, a physical impossibility given the heat of burning jet fuel and the physical properties of the plane's materials. furthermore the OT claims almost all of the fatalities were identified via DNA yet without explaining how the heat which evaporated the plane left any DNA to identify

* the entry hole on the outer wall is too small to fit the fuselage of a 757, and there are no entry holes for the two turbofan engines, which weigh several tons each

* there is however an even smaller exit hole on the inside of the 'C' ring (3rd ring in), suggesting the normally fragile fuselage of this alleged passenger plane was able to slam thru 9 feet of reinforced concrete, another physical impossibility

* several pentagon staff reported they smelled cordite after the hit and believed a bomb had gone off. none saw the wreckage of any plane, and at least one was visited in hospital by unknown men who insisted it was a passenger plane and to keep quiet about what she'd seen and heard

* numerous cameras were pointing at the facade of the pentagon at that spot, including those of a sheraton hotel, a gas station, and the pentagon's own security cameras, yet only 5 frames of the gas station footage were ever released. none of these frames show a 757

* eyewitnesses outside the pentagon disagree about the identity of the craft. some said it was a 757, others said a corporate jet, yet others a helicopter, and at least one guy said the thing flew almost without a sound right over their car. 757's are not quiet beasts

* the 'plane' was not shot down by the pentagon's own missile defence systems

And try to keep posting many random links to a minimum. Quote relevant information instead of distracting with massive chunks of text.

done

If the evidence "clearly" adds up, that should be more than sufficient to prove your case.

it should, unfortunately many people will go on clinging to a discredited theory (like the official theory) just because no one's provided a complete alternative

And use the scientific method when you write.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

the scientific method doesn't entirely apply since a) the alternative theory can't make predictions and test them since this is a historical event and b) there is no fully worked-out alternative theory to test anyway. the points i listed above are testing - and falsifying imho - the official theory

one last point: if you believe the official theory, please explain, in one post, without random links and distracting chunks of text, how the documentary evidence in the public domain supports the official theory. and use the scientific method when you write

 

[Ome_Vince]

Funny i just watched a 1,5 hour documentary on why and how the pentagon crash.
Many researchers were puzzled and an investigation took place on why the damage was little and the debris burnt up.

The wreckage disintegrated in the pentagon due to: the plane plowing in the ground ( a piece of wing was found 3 meters in the ground ), and by the time the plane was inside the structure the heat+pressure made it explode and disintegrate.
Considering the damage delt to the reinforced Pentagon part its believable.

Had the Pentagon been a regular structure, not half a bunker, the structure+damage would have been greater.

More importantly, think about it for a second:
The US Government wants to fake a commercial plane flying into the pentagon to fool billions of people. There's 2 options:

-Let a US military aircraft about 1/10th the size fly low in broad daylight over residential areas, thousands of people right into the pentagon with only "little damage" and make that look like a commercial plane..

or

-Get a scrapheap commercial plane, paint it up, and fly that into the pentagon, so hundreds of eye witnesses, possible camera's, media and the debris+damage would be accurate.

I'd like to know which moron in the US government would chose option1...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ Exactly. Camera videos recording from nearby stores, gas stations, and the Pentagon themselves show the plane sharding into hundreds of thousands of tiny little pieces.

The structure of the Pentagon is reinforced Concrete and heap of other Chobham related materials. Its meant to stop Cannon Shells, and I'm sure it could've stopped a plane.

 

[baxter]

UltraProAnti,

Since you've taken the time to “pull away” one leg could you answer a few questions I have regarding what you have said.

1 What happened to flight 77?
2. What happened to the 66 people onboard it?
3. Why was flight 77 data recorders (black boxes) found at the crash site?
4. If they were planted there, who planted them?
5. Are you suggesting that the 50 forensic scientists who spent two weeks identifying all but 6 of the victims are lying?
6. If they are not lying who planted the evidence?
7 Would you please take a look at these photographs of the internal damage of the Pentagon. If these photographs do not show the wreckage of flight 77 what do you think they show?
8. Why did 125 Pentagon staff die if the area was unoccupied and under renovation at the time?

Once you have given reasonable answers to these questions and not simply wildly speculated I would like to debate with you the reasons why and who you think possibly ordered this attack, when they ordered it and various other aspects of your theory.

Oh one other question who on earth was the mysterious hospital visitor?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

8. Why did 125 Pentagon staff die if the area was unoccupied and under renovation at the time?

The Pentagon is a large structure, it takes an extremely long time to get from point A to point B. My guess is that even though some officers were unoccupied or under renovation, some were also occupied because well ... I have no other explanation that in some places, some officers are used and others are not.

Plus those people, at least half of them anyways, could've been walking from point to point. It was'nt just one floor that was pegged, and several more died in the hospital.

 

[Eg.]

Really i have to say, if this was all faked, where are the hundreds of passengers, were they all made up? 1984 no persons? Really, this would have to be such a complex sham that it rivals the "faked" moonlanding.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

7 Would you please take a look at these photographs of the internal damage of the Pentagon. If these photographs do not show the wreckage of flight 77 what do you think they show?

I'm more interested in the resulting damage to the building structure.
Notice some pillars in the immediate vicinity are completely unharmed, and some that were hit directly still stand.
Also realize this building is only a few stories tall with no primary support columns.
The frame is wood, and fire was not considered in it's design over 60 years ago.

"The original rapid construction and choice of materials during World War II lead to a flexible plan with large horizontal spaces. A resulting lack of firebreaks in the original construction may contribute to difficulty in fire suppression."
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

The concrete masonry and steel structure however are indeed fire and impact resistant.

This plane had a trouble going through a few simple brick walls and small pillars but we are to expect a similar plane made it through a strong, 30 year advanced architecture designed specifially to withstand aerial impact and it's own 100 floors of weight.

Really i have to say, if this was all faked, where are the hundreds of passengers, were they all made up? 1984 no persons? Really, this would have to be such a complex sham that it rivals the "faked" moonlanding.

Nobody is saying it was faked.
Most of us are saying there is a great possibility it was controlled as opposed to random terrorism.
We are not even ruling out terrorism as a whole.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

If you'e disputing that a plane hit the Pentagon, then what are you suggesting did hit the Pentagon?

 

[Beerdude26]

If you'e disputing that a plane hit the Pentagon, then what are you suggesting did hit the Pentagon?

Shens.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Don't be ridiculous.

The building is still standing.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

If you'e disputing that a plane hit the Pentagon, then what are you suggesting did hit the Pentagon?

Any possibility you could direct that question at someone? Posting right after me assumes you are talking to me, and I have been in agreement with the plane hitting the Pentagon. It's obvious from the ruin in the pictures of the link posted.

---
(open commentary not directed to anyone: )
But if you compare the Pentagon to the Towers, we should assume the damage should be pretty similar.

We take into account the fact one is a tower made almost completely of steel, it should have a better chance of surviving this kind of damage because it was designed to.

What I am pointing out here is very extreme inconsistency.

 

[Eg.]

No the trade towers were made to withstand a plane hit, back in the 70's. The pentagon is a reinforce MILITARY complex. they do not share the same construction at all, nor do they have the same safety features.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

A: Osama took the blame, so the Iraq plan makes no sense.

sure it does, what if osama and bush are good buddies?

B: The same people who supposedly choreographed the most well-documented event in recent memory failed at making the exceedingly simple fake Iraq evidence.

what fake iraq evidence? what are you tlaking about?

C: There is no way in hell that Bush managed to convince many thousands of random people to unquestioningly commit mass murder (and murder-suicides) against their own country in exchange for next to no payoff.
It is basically impossible.

Thousands?? It would probably take less than a hundred people to plant explosives in the Trade centers. Find a few people that hate america and give them a few bucks, and its quite a feasible scenario.

E: If the idea was purely to make terrorists look scary, why bother even hitting the pentagon?

Hitting the pentagon would,
a - help make it look like it wasnt the pentagon who came up with this whole attack, and
b - destroy all the documentation and evidence of the planned attack within the pentagon.

F: How exactly did they convince al Queda to agree to all this?

[/QUOTE]

Well, if you look at some historic evidence, in about the 1980s, america was colludeing with alqueda quite a bit in afghanistan when they were battling with the soviets, even helping them with weaponry and giving them training. It's also true that Osama bin landen was trained by the cia. They go way back. If you don't believe me go look it up. Considering these past relations, its quite feasible that the US may have used alqueda in some way to carry out these attacks. I mean the day after september 11, bush was accompanying Binladens family to a private jet out of america, and this was at a time all airbourne vehicles were forbidden from entering the air.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Yeah it sounds like complete lunacy because there is no evidence to support it. All your doing is coming up with a story and saying it must be true because you cant figure out why this would happen or theres only a small chance of this happening so GWB must have killed americans!

no you idiot. thats what you're saying. Ive seen convincing evidence that has lead me to believe this. Your claiming im pulling this story out of my ass because YOU cant figure out why this would happen. What Im saying sounds like complete lunacy to YOU because you can't fathom the possiblity america is capable of it.

Again with your logic...you figure a few lives lost for the greater good is alright? Since when was something worse than 9/11 present and those killed in 9/11 were considered the few that died for the greater good? You need to stop talking, your just being dumb.

Firstly, theres alot, lot lottttttttt worse things that have happened in the world than the world trade centers falling down. Three thousand people dying from aggressors is almost negligable to the amount of people who have died from agreesors before. The only reason you think it was so big, because it was a large media event. I mean a few years ago, in rwanda alone, 2 million people were slaughtered by aggresors, but you dont see that in the media, so thats not important to you. Or maybe your just racist and think that american lives are more valuable then others.
Secondly 'greater good' is always the perception of what somebody in power believes is the greater good. For example, hitler believed that jews needed to be elimated for the greater good, or in our case, Bush beleived that a couple of americans needed to be sacrificed for the billions of dollars of post war reconstruction contracts he's reaping in from iraq right now for his haliburton corporation.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

* 'plane' approaches pentagon from north, makes a tight 330deg turn which 757 pilots say is impossible without stalling (and the alleged pilot is apparently a below-average pilot according to his flight school), and slams by sheer coincidence into the section of the pentagon undergoing renovation and virtually unoccupied

What is the basis for the 330 degree measurement?
Where are you getting these pilot claims from?
Why is it impossible without stalling?
These are questions you need to address.

Even if that is accurate, a stalled plane does not just drop from the sky. They glide, with nearly the same amount of inertia they had while the engines were on.
This would also address your later complaint about why the eyewitness claimed there were engine noises. (Although he was also in a running car, which would logically make things even more difficult to hear.)

The fact that the pilot wasn't trained explains why he would do a dangerous turn.
You said it yourself: No trained pilot would do that shitty turn.
So why are you alleging it was a trained pilot?

Nearly 200 people died in the "virtually unoccupied" section.

Part 1: Failure.

* according to the official theory (henceforth OT) the plane bounces off the llawn outside but no skid marks or debris are to be seen in any of the photos

* no wreckage of wings, tail or engines are visible in the photos. the one piece of wreckage that IS visible - a fan - is claimed to be part of the 757's APU from the tail section, but the 'plane's manufacturers say it isn't

Where have the manufacturers said it wasn't from the tail?
Who are these manufacturers?
Could you find me a picture of the "fake" fan and one of the real fan?
Again, these are questions you need to address and should have addressed in the first place.

The plane bounced. Therefore it would make bounce marks, and not skid marks.
_ _ _
instead of
_______________________

The logical assumption is that the photos show the gaps between the bounce(s).
Since you are relying on what you admit is an imperfect photographic record, it's not logical to assume that, since you can't see the mark, it doesn't exist.
Eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the ground at least once with one wing. So, obviously, you're simply not looking at the right angles.
As for the government planting the wrong fan, how could they do so without anyone knowing, and then still get the plane wrong?

Parts 2&3: Failure.

* no bodies, seats or luggage are visible in any of the photos from inside or out

* OT has it that the absence of wreckage is due to the plane 'evaporating' in the intense heat of the explosion, a physical impossibility given the heat of burning jet fuel and the physical properties of the plane's materials. furthermore the OT claims almost all of the fatalities were identified via DNA yet without explaining how the heat which evaporated the plane left any DNA to identify

Why is this physically impossible?
Why would DNA evaporate?

Wait...
You are making two simultaneous contradictory complaints here:
1: There should have been bodies.
2: There shouldn't have been any bodies.

You're also thinking backwards.
If the entire metal structure of the plane was blown to pieces, why would you expect to see the plastic seats lying around?
And it was blown to pieces. You said yourself that the planes are fragile. This one was smashed with enough force to blow through substantial amounts of concrete, and had the added stress of being heated extremely rapidly at the same time.
Planes only leave huge chunky parts when they hit relatively gently. This one was deliberately put through the maximum strain.

As for the DNA being fake, are you actually claiming that the government somehow kidnapped the passengers, killed them offsite, stole their DNA and then got well upwards of 50 random people to lie about it?
Or is it more logical to assume that they did find bodies, and simply didn't release the grisly photos to you out of decency? I've only seen one photo of a dead body from the world trade center, which was not released to the media but somehow leaked to the internet.
Yet I am not stupid enough to assume that only one man died.

Again, you are relying on incomplete photographic record to search for details.

Parts 4&5: Failure.

* the entry hole on the outer wall is too small to fit the fuselage of a 757, and there are no entry holes for the two turbofan engines, which weigh several tons each

Aha, here's the easy one.
Everyone knows the plane flew in while tilted at an angle. One wing hit the ground.
Aerial photos show that much of the damage was to part of the roof as well.

As for the wall-hole being too small, it certainly did not appear that way to me, considering the engines and wings did not factor in the hole is correct.

You should also keep in mind that the exterior of the plane was nearly skinned off by the crash. aluminum plates with parts of the "american airlines" logo on them were scattered everywhere outside the hole.

Part 6: Totally Failure.

* there is however an even smaller exit hole on the inside of the 'C' ring (3rd ring in), suggesting the normally fragile fuselage of this alleged passenger plane was able to slam thru 9 feet of reinforced concrete, another physical impossibility

How, exactly, is that impossible?

It's called kinetic energy.

Part 7: Fail.

* several pentagon staff reported they smelled cordite after the hit and believed a bomb had gone off. none saw the wreckage of any plane, and at least one was visited in hospital by unknown men who insisted it was a passenger plane and to keep quiet about what she'd seen and heard

Where are these eyewitness reports from?

Why, unknown men! The cornerstone of any great conspiracy theory is the unknown men.
What a brilliant plan the government had, to tell this single woman what hit her and then ask secrecy from a person who works at the pentagon during a national emergency.
Assuming they even were from the government. It could have been just about any idiot giving news and advice.
Airtight.

And jimminy christmas, people smelt an explosive smell after the plane exploded.
What kind of missile uses cordite anyways?
A: The reptilian kind.

Parts 8&9: Failure.

* numerous cameras were pointing at the facade of the pentagon at that spot, including those of a sheraton hotel, a gas station, and the pentagon's own security cameras, yet only 5 frames of the gas station footage were ever released. none of these frames show a 757

Wow, that's great evidence. "I can't see anything." Yowza. More airtight science.
Also, I have seen frames fairly clearly depicting an airplane flying quite close to the ground. Perhaps someone has misled you?

Part 10: Failure!

* eyewitnesses outside the pentagon disagree about the identity of the craft. some said it was a 757, others said a corporate jet, yet others a helicopter, and at least one guy said the thing flew almost without a sound right over their car. 757's are not quiet beasts

* the 'plane' was not shot down by the pentagon's own missile defence systems

done

This just in: eyewitnesses not 100% reliable! Film at 11.

I totally agree though. You have soundly proven that the pentagon was hit by by a transformer. Curse you, Megatron!

You already explained any lack of sound on your own, and the pentagon had no anti-missile system in 2001.
Even if they did, I doubt they would shoot down a civilian airliner.

Parts 11&12: Total Failure.

"Done" indeed!

Let's recap what went wrong:

[This] should [be more than enough absolute proof], unfortunately many people will go on clinging to a discredited theory (like the official theory) just because no one's provided a complete alternative

Actually, you failed to discredit the real events in just about every way.
All you did was list random statements without any cohesive point tying them together.
Many were based on a lack of knowledge, inadequate information and confusion on your part.
Many more were logically dubious, at best.

Grand Total: Failure Times 12

So, why am I calling this stupid?

the scientific method doesn't entirely apply since a) the alternative theory can't make predictions and test them since this is a historical event and b) there is no fully worked-out alternative theory to test anyway. the points i listed above are testing - and falsifying imho - the official theory

See, you can't just say "this happened in the past therefore no-one can use science" and then make approximately twenty seperate unsupported scientific claims.

As for your point B:

one last point: if you believe the official theory, please explain, in one post, without random links and distracting chunks of text, how the documentary evidence in the public domain supports the official theory. and use the scientific method when you write

See, what you don't understand is that the "alledgedly "real" """plane""" """"official"""" """theory"""." has already been stated, restated and re-restated by real scientists using real science.

You are stepping up and challenging the rational world.
It is up to you to present a point that isn't flaccid.
Otherwise, the rational world wins by default.

So far, as I have shown, you have failed to make a good point.

Do you understand why your point was sucky?
Here is why:

-You just listed random statements with no clear conclusion, or even a tie between the various points.
-You said "I can't see it therefore it does exist" and "I can't see it therefore it can't exist" as evidence, which is not only stupid, but also self contradictory. (Why believe one thing and not another when you have zero evidence for either?).
-You are (sorta clearly) relying on arguments copied almost verbatim from Clarky-style conspiracy websites instead of actual science.
-You are extremely reliant on eyewitness accounts, even though you simultaneously proved that many were faulty.
-You used anecdotal evidence as real evidence.
-You proved effect while ignoring cause. (The pentagon was lucky to have been hit in a safer area. So the only logical conclusion is that it was a government plot? Where is proof of any plot?)

And more!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

what if osama and bush are good buddies?

What if George Bush is secretly a unicorn?
God I hate people.

what fake iraq evidence? what are you tlaking about?

I'll talk slower.
-You are claiming that 9/11 was staged as an excuse to fight Iraq.
-For that to work, the US administration would have to plant fake evidence in Iraq.
-There was no fake evidence in Iraq.

Thousands?? It would probably take less than a hundred people to plant explosives in the Trade centers. Find a few people that hate america and give them a few bucks, and its quite a feasible scenario.

A controlled demolition of even a small building requires several hundred explosives.
Clarky & Friends are claiming that similar explosives were planted in all key supports on just about every floor of both the world's tallest buildings in order to make the floors "pancake" in sequence. That is a massive undertaking.

In order to run a conspiracy this size, you MUST have at least a thousand people participating in secret.
Someone is making the bombs.
Someone is buying the parts.
Someone is making up excuses to send in a maintenance team.
Someone is transporting the massive quantities of explosives.
Someone is driving the truck.
Someone is flying the plane to his death for no reason.
Someone knows he has a knife and is letting him through security.
Someone is choreographing the entire thing.
Someone is making a deal with al Queda.
Someone is building a fake airplane
Someone is flying it remote-control.
Someone is renovating the pentagon.
Someone is helping out.
Someone is recruiting conspirators
Someone is holding the real passengers in a secret location.
Someone is faking DNA evidence.
Someone is collecting DNA from fake corpses.
Someone is making fake corpses.
Someone is is helping to scatter the wrong airplane parts on the ground outside.
Someone is driving the stealth truck full of airplane parts.
Someone is dismantling an airplane for parts.
Someone is flying the "orbs."
Someone is convincing cheney that no one will notice tonnes of thermite.
Someone is faking the video footage.
Someone is collecting up the real footage.
Someone is destroying the real footage.
Someone is telling a random person not to speak to the press.
Someone is paying off the world's media anyways.
Someone is paying off the world's scientists.
Someone is paying off hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Someone is accepting the money without question.
Someone is hiding this spending.
Someone forgot to hide evidence in Iraq.
Someone is building a missile.
Someone is launching the missile.
Someone is steering the missile.
Someone isn't reporting the lost missile.
Someone is filling the place with cordite.
Someone is detonating the cordite.
Someone is detonating the thermite.
Someone is detonating a squib.
Someone is hiding all the bomb evidence.
Someone is faking the hostage phone calls.
Someone is blurring the jpeg.
Someone isn't noticing all these bombs lying around.

Someone is stupid enough to believe this shit.

Anyway, here's a challenge for you: Find fifty americans with access to the UN and specific knowledge of demolitions technology and ask them to fill it with bombs.
Try three.
Try one?

Good luck this is so retarded.

 

[Pajari]

Someone is stupid enough to believe this shit.

M-m-m-mega kill. Well done.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

No the trade towers were made to withstand a plane hit, back in the 70's. The pentagon is a reinforce MILITARY complex. they do not share the same construction at all, nor do they have the same safety features.

I totally agree.

The pentagon has no fire barriers, a wooden frame, and very small steel support structures enveloped in a decent amount of concrete.

The design of the building itself i.e. the shape lends it it's strength, but the ingenuity is practically archaic.

In the photos we see a plane has bore itself through the building almost completely, disintegrating along the way.

The masonry and wood floors and steel pillars for the most part survived. Support columns show impact with the plane but still stand.

It's a very sturdy building.

Now, WTC towers. They have steel floors which serve multiple purposes, aside from supporting massive amounts of weight it's a foolproof fire barrier held up by countless massive steel support beams coated in concrete.
Impact with these beams was limited to a few floors, so >90% of them remained intact before the collapse. Remember fire is blamed for the collapse, but remember as well no simple fire is hot enough to melt steel, or even concrete which I pointed out earlier has a higher melting point.

If you have ever seen a central support pillar in any tall building, you would see they are usually very massive, about the size of however many elevators they can fit inside.
Point is it would stop a plane instantly depending on speed and mass.
One plane crashed directly through the middle, clipping the support column with the fuselage.
One did not.
One much shorter building suffered no such impact, yet despite these differences all 3 buildings shared the same fate within a similar amount of time.

Does that make sense? Not to me. None of the buildings should have fallen.

To me, considering the construction and facts surrounding the collapse, it is completely illogical.

Noone can prove the planes alone caused the buildings to fall anymore than can anyone prove explosives were used at the base of the buildings.

 

[Glirk Dient]

no you idiot. thats what you're saying. Ive seen convincing evidence that has lead me to believe this. Your claiming im pulling this story out of my ass because YOU cant figure out why this would happen. What Im saying sounds like complete lunacy to YOU because you can't fathom the possiblity america is capable of it.

The above is lunacy rambling. Your turning it around and that is not what I am doing. There are hardcore facts backing up the planes causing the collapse. Physics proves this is possible. There is no evidence whatsoever that the government did this. There are only loopholes which you enter your theories into. FYI It was really the cookie monster who wanted GWB to start a war with terrorists so the cookie monster could really begin to import his illicit cookie substances.

Firstly, theres alot, lot lottttttttt worse things that have happened in the world than the world trade centers falling down. Three thousand people dying from aggressors is almost negligable to the amount of people who have died from agreesors before. The only reason you think it was so big, because it was a large media event. I mean a few years ago, in rwanda alone, 2 million people were slaughtered by aggresors, but you dont see that in the media, so thats not important to you. Or maybe your just racist and think that american lives are more valuable then others.

3k people dying is a big deal. These are 3k people, some of which many people personally knew. So when someone you knows died in the event, it hits home and means a whole lot more. It is like saying so what if your mom died...everyones mom dies so suck it up baby. Or waaaa...your leg just got shot off? Want me to get you a band aid and a lolipop ya pussy? People lose their legs all the time, get over it. Also...whos to say the U.S. should go stompin into other countries and fix their problems? I am pretty sure that was a staple argument against Iraq but now its OK for another country? Granted they are different and many people are dying in rwanda but I am certain that in the future we will see more involvement.

Secondly 'greater good' is always the perception of what somebody in power believes is the greater good. For example, hitler believed that jews needed to be elimated for the greater good, or in our case, Bush beleived that a couple of americans needed to be sacrificed for the billions of dollars of post war reconstruction contracts he's reaping in from iraq right now for his haliburton corporation.

Wait...did you just contradict yourself? Your saying that bush killed 3k americans for the greater good of the country yet you say its for bush to gain money? Thats not the greater good of the country, besides if he wanted money it would be a whole lot easier to fraud it. Iraq is far too large a media event to keep it under wraps and from people investigating. You conspiracy theorists just don't think things threw.

 

[ComradeBadger]

To me, considering the construction and facts surrounding the collapse, it is completely illogical.

The key there is 'to me'.

Noone can prove the planes alone caused the buildings to fall anymore than can anyone prove explosives were used at the base of the buildings.

Then why does real, peer-reviewed scientific evidence exist for one side of the arguement, and batshit insane website evidence exist for the other?

 

[UltraProAnti]

You are stepping up and challenging the rational world.
It is up to you to present a point that isn't flaccid.
Otherwise, the rational world wins by default.

So far, as I have shown, you have failed to make a good point.

Do you understand why your point was sucky?
Here is why:

-You just listed random statements with no clear conclusion, or even a tie between the various points.
-You said "I can't see it therefore it does exist" and "I can't see it therefore it can't exist" as evidence, which is not only stupid, but also self contradictory. (Why believe one thing and not another when you have zero evidence for either?).
-You are (sorta clearly) relying on arguments copied almost verbatim from Clarky-style conspiracy websites instead of actual science.
-You are extremely reliant on eyewitness accounts, even though you simultaneously proved that many were faulty.
-You used anecdotal evidence as real evidence.
-You proved effect while ignoring cause. (The pentagon was lucky to have been hit in a safer area. So the only logical conclusion is that it was a government plot? Where is proof of any plot?)

And more!

whoa there sparky. first you want a quick, single post set of reasons for doubting the official story, without chunks of quotes and endless links. i give you that, and then you decide you want the quotes and links after all, so - since i really can't be bothered to type you a wikipedia entry - here's one with more detail than any other:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html

this guy doesn't have any "z0mg it wuz teh neoKKKonzz0rs!!!111" theory to peddle, just plenty of documentary evidence. draw your own conclusions

as to your specific points above...

-You just listed random statements with no clear conclusion, or even a tie between the various points.

wow, it's almost as if you forgot what this topic is about. the conclusion is that the official story is crap (whether you agree with that conclusion or not) and the tie-in is that all these points have to do with events at the pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001

-You said "I can't see it therefore it does exist" and "I can't see it therefore it can't exist" as evidence, which is not only stupid, but also self contradictory.

umm, nope, don't think so. give an example of where you think i did this

-You are (sorta clearly) relying on arguments copied almost verbatim from Clarky-style conspiracy websites instead of actual science.

i've no idea what a "clarky-style" conspiracy website is, so you'll have to enlighten me on that, and i didn't post any arguments. i posted "random statements with no clear conclusion", remember?

-You are extremely reliant on eyewitness accounts, even though you simultaneously proved that many were faulty.

since when do eyewitness claims have to be either all true or all false? if some joe in the street says "that wasn't an american airlines plane" i'd take that with a truckload of salt, but if several people working for the DoD say "i smelled cordite" that's rather more credible, given that a good many pentagon staff are in uniform and could reasonably expect to tell the difference between cordite and cordon bleu

-You used anecdotal evidence as real evidence.

OMG quick someone call the supreme court! they're allowing witness testimony into due process instead of just relying on 'real evidence'! there's this thing called assessing a witness's credibility, which i think i covered already

-You proved effect while ignoring cause. (The pentagon was lucky to have been hit in a safer area. So the only logical conclusion is that it was a government plot? Where is proof of any plot?)

right, here you're insisting that the case against the official theory stands or falls with some suggested alternative theory - an irrational argument i think i dealt with in my first post on this subject. the official theory stands or falls on its own merits, and like any theory, if a load of evidence doesn't 'fit' the theory then the theory is false.

i don't know what actually DID happen on 9/11, nor did i ever claim to. but i'm pretty sure i know what DIDN'T happen

you claim to know what did happen, and dismiss anything that doesn't support your claim. now that's "challenging the rational world"

 

[UltraProAnti]

Then why does real, peer-reviewed scientific evidence exist for one side of the arguement, and batshit insane website evidence exist for the other?

are referring to articles like this one?

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter VI Materials & Structures.pdf

first para:

The collapse of the World-Trade Center towers, on September 11, 2001, has raised questions
about the design principles in high-rise buildings. In this article, we first consider the likely
failure mechanisms that may have ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin towers. This
analysis is based on a materials -to-structures approach, in which we look both at the
characteristic behavior of the construction materials and the design details of the buildings.
The very fact that the buildings survived the crash of the planes into the buildings suggests that
a time dependent behavior at the material level affected the structural stability of the structure
to the point of failure. On the other hand, the failure per se reveals the existence of a weakest
link in the structural system, which ultimately failed because of a lack of redundancy. We then
turn to the question whether from an engineering point of view skyscrapers will continue
to have a future in the 21st century despite the increased vulnerability of our mega-cities. New
materials -to-structures engineering solutions are also discussed, which in time could provide a
new technology of redundancy to ameliorate the vulnerability of critical engineering structures.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I said without massive quotes and links.
Rather, I simply had no desire to sift through ten pages of rambling on some conspiracy website just to find your point.
Any good point can be summarized neatly.
However, I did not say to absolutely exclude rational thought or to give up on listing sources. Just to present the information in a clear and documented manner.

the conclusion is that the official story is crap (whether you agree with that conclusion or not) and the tie-in is that all these points have to do with events at the pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001

That's not a proper thesis-like structure at all. You simply listed a series of random things you found curious.

Here, essentially, is what you said:

-The 757 plane that hit the pentagon was quiet.
-Actually, it was not even a 757 but actually a different plane, based on a fan.
-Actually, it wasn't even making sound so it must have been a missile.
-Actually, maybe it was a helicopter.
-Actually, I didn't see bodies so it must have been a missile after all.
-Actually, they smelt cordite so it must have been just a bomb.
-Actually etc.

That's not a coherent point. That's a large pile of contradictory statements.

Unless you are trying to prove it was a shapeshifting semi-invisible mind-control cordite bomb with wings, this is not a compelling argument.
Instead, it shows exactly how little evidence (such as it is) challenges the reality of the events, and how poorly it does so.

give an example of where you think i did [use absence of evidence as evidence of absence/evidence of conspiracy]

Seriously?

"the plane bounces off the llawn outside but no skid marks or debris are to be seen in any of the photos"
"no wreckage of wings, tail or engines are visible in the photos"
"no bodies, seats or luggage are visible in any of the photos"
"only 5 frames of the gas station footage were ever released."
"visited by unknown men"

That's about half your points, and the rely entirely on ignorance to appear malicious.
The men are unknown, so you immediately assume it's Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones zapping people with memory rays.
The video footage was only partly released, so you immediately assume the invisible footage is full of of the proof that you aren't crazy.
Yet, you also say that missing photos prove that bodies, plane parts and other damage don't exist.
Your list of contradictory eyewitness reports also constitute an absence of evidence. You were implying that, since some people were wrong, it must have been a missile?

None of those things is evidence. All of those things are you filling in the blanks with guesswork that supports your imagination and contradict the facts.
Then you call that contradiction evidence of how wrong the rest of the world is.
You're basically writing fiction here.

i've no idea what a "clarky-style" conspiracy website is, so you'll have to enlighten me on that, and i didn't post any arguments. i posted "random statements with no clear conclusion", remember?

You very, very obviously did not get your ideas from the scientific community or from your own research.
I therefore find it safe to assume that you are simply repeating things you heard in those "loose change" videos and similar amateur websites.
I can confirm this when you list your sources with a link and small relevant quotes.
(The reason I say "with a link" and not "with a bibliography" is that we all know you haven't read a book on the subject.)

As for your second point, I think you have quite ably proven that you don't need to act intelligent to be able to argue. And argue and argue. And argue.
Hint: it's the pejorative sense)

since when do eyewitness claims have to be either all true or all false?

They don't - IF they are mutually supported by the majority of evidence.

About a quarter of your argument was based on eyewitness reports which, considering the weakness of your other points, is waay too much. Since they almost all contradict eachother, it makes it even more puzzling why you would use them.

OMG quick someone call the supreme court! they're allowing witness testimony into due process instead of just relying on 'real evidence'! there's this thing called assessing a witness's credibility, which i think i covered already

You didn't assess any credibility and, once again, anecdotal evidence is only useful when supplemented with actual evidence.
Instead, you supplemented anecdotes with pseudo-evidence (like using absence of evidence as evidence of absence in the case of the unknown men)
or with no evidence or point at all.

right, here you're insisting that the case against the official theory stands or falls with some suggested alternative theory - an irrational argument i think i dealt with in my first post on this subject. the official theory stands or falls on its own merits, and like any theory, if a load of evidence doesn't 'fit' the theory then the theory is false.

This is a pseudoscientific fallacy. You do not dismiss something purely because it is questioned.
THE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE VALID, then they need to be answered and then they are incorporated into the bulk of the proven data.
People don't just reject gravity because the universe is expanding.
People don't just reject evolution because intelligent design popped up.
If you reject 9/11, you will need to reject both evolution and gravity unless you are a hypocrite.

i don't know what actually DID happen on 9/11, nor did i ever claim to. but i'm pretty sure i know what DIDN'T happen

This is called a belief, and it serves as a nice thesis statement for your quasi-point.
"I don't know anything, therefore everyone who knows something is wrong."

you claim to know what did happen, and dismiss anything that doesn't support your claim. now that's "challenging the rational world"

You need to learn the difference between 'dismissing' and 'disproving'.

You dismissscience. Science disproves you.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

The key there is 'to me'.

Pointless observation.

Then why does real, peer-reviewed scientific evidence exist for one side of the arguement, and batshit insane website evidence exist for the other?

Instead of asking me this, post a link to this scientific evidence so we can review it.

 

[Ome_Vince]

/quote
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.

ps, Nice illustration

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ lol!!

 

[baxter]

Instead of asking me this, post a link to this scientific evidence so we can review it.

Like this ?

Or this?

Let us know when you have read them both and what conclusions you draw from them.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Nice animation but can anyone veryify how hot deisel and jet fuel burn? I think it's odd they are saying it burned at exactly the same value concrete needs to melt.

Like this ?

Or this?

Let us know when you have read them both and what conclusions you draw from them.

Good thing I've got the day off...