Amazon.com Widgets

« Wisdom From The Brew | Main | Frank Caliendo »

Bill Maher

I know exactly what you mean Bill I'm conspiracy weary too. Do they serve beer at Hooters?




Quicktime Video 8.8 MB | Duration: 06'12
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Real Time w/Bill Maher
More Bill Maher video here


 

Comments

Yes they do serve beer. The real question is do they serve milk?

New Rule: Conspiracy Theorists have to get past mere criticism of events (which may actually be legitimate mind you) and actually construct an alternative version of the events that makes more sense than the official story. Any of the valid criticisms still do not make it plausible that the events were significantly different than the official version.

New Rule brought to you by the following.

Oh and is it just me, or does anyone else miss "Whose Like Is It Anyway?" I only got to see the American version with Drew Carey but they say the English version was superior.

"How big a lunatic do you have to be...?"

I don't know why everyone hates 9/11 conspiracy theorists so much. Even if they're wrong, think about what they are doing. They're using critical analysis to arrive at a [different] conclusion. It's basically science. The United States needs more critical analysis, not less. Even if 9/11 conspiracy theorists are 100 percent incorrect, I don't think that they should be scoffed at, called names, and demoralized. Their efforts should be recognized and applauded at least.

It's rather obvious that the official 9/11 report is partially fabricated, thus there is much room for speculation. I've read and watched much regarding 9/11 from both main sides (inside vs. outside job), as well as many other, smaller sides, and I must say that both main sides have certain plausible scenarios backed by varying amounts of evidence. (Personally, I don't buy into any of them because the evidence for all sides is incomplete.)

If nothing else, conspiracy theorists keep everyone in check. Without them, which is what many people, publications, and broadcasts seem to want, everyone would just go along with the majority in an unthinking mass. We don't want that, do we?

Of course we should allow anyone to ask any questions and speculate but these conspiracy theorists do not do this honestly. They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect.

Everyone hates 9/11 conspiracy theorists because they are fucking retarded. Conspiracy theorists keep everyone in check? How so? By making the rest of us feel more sane because what you say is so utterly outside the realm of reason and logic? Bigfoot sightings and UFO reports are in the same aisle at the nutcase Wal-Mart where you also find tarot readers and horoscopes. May

user-pic

"They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect."

Seems like they should be running for office with those kind of skills.

I dont think most of the big theories are very accurate, but I havent had any experience that tells me that the people who have presented the offical story are any more trust or respect worthy than the nuts. And the nuts are not waging a war that is making them rich and us poor. The same can not be said for the folks who brought us the official story.

Keep in mind that a large percentage of the "offical story crowd", are also part of the "Jesus died for your sins", "America's health care system is the best in the world", "There is no problem with electronic voting", "Saddam planned, funded 9/11", "we will be greeted as liberators, and out in 6 months" bunch.

Now who sounds more nuts?

Yeah, they are a bit nuts, the conspiracy guys, but living in this world has a way of doing that to people.

Regardless of whether or not the WTC was an inside job, it is extremely obvious that it was a controlled demolition.

"Conspiracy theorists keep everyone in check? How so?"

Well, they have sparked this massive debate that you and I are now discussing. I have seen numerous books published, documentaries created, university debates/conferences held, and more. Without the conspiracy theorists, I bet the majority of this discourse would not exist. It keeps people on their toes, I guess.

What's the worst that could happen, anyway? Everyone becomes a conspiracy theorist and overthrows the government, then puts in an honest, forthright administration that people respect? Aren't they really on our side when you think about it?

Though I generally appreciate Bill Maher's comments, he has his own sort of conspiracy theory concerning biology. He thinks that vaccination is a fraud perpetrated by who knows what medical cabal.

http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/12/bill-maher-and-his-anti-vaccination.html

Come on Bill,

Loose Change was hilarious! Just throw these guys a bone once in a while and they'll keep serving up some great works of comedy the likes of which no sane person could ever compete with.

The iphone bit had me rolling ;-)

Yeah conspiracy theorists are crazy. Obviously it was the planes that caused the buildings to fall at free fall speed. But how do you explain how Building 7 fell? The 47 story building that wasn't hit by any plane, that collapsed. Google building 7, watch the video, then ask yourself why you've never heard of it, and then ask yourself if you really think it's possible for a building to collapse like that from a fire. If it seems like it would be impossible, then open your mind a little and consider that the official story may the conspiracy theory.

Difficult.

I do not believe the gouvernment itself flew those planes into the WTC.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it would turn out some bush-people hardliners knew about the attack and let them happen as fuel for their political agenda.

And even a not-believer like me must acknowledge that their thories ~between lots of paranoic bullshit~ HAVE a few valid points. Statements by reputable scientists that let you think wether the "official story" is 100% true- The same story that was brought to you by the "Iraq is behind it, and Saddam has WMDs!"-people.

Like it was said - the USA needs more critical thinkers, not less.

Jim, that Building 7-story, wasn't that the one where the owner of the building itself said on television it was blasted, and later hastily revoked his statement, but got millions of insurance-Dollars, far more than he initially had paid for the building?

I don't remember details or names about the story, but it WAS suspicious, even for us sceptics.

In conclusion: We should use our own mind, and do some research on ourselves, then judge, not just echoe the official story or some guys conspiracy-video on the internet.

McRae,

My house is insured for more than I paid for it because it would cost more to rebuild it than I paid for it. This is very common with property insurance. There's nothing suspicious about that unless you don't understand the basic reasons for having property insurance.

Is Paxil right for you? ;-)

I'm not one to believe anyone with a farfetched story, whether it's "Bush did 9/11" or "Iraq has WMDs" but I've watched Zeitgeist and LooseChange and I have to say, there is stuff there that should be addressed. I think some of the connections the conspiracy theorists make might be wrong, but we need to hear from legitimate scientists why, for example, there was molten metal still on fire, hotter than jet fuel, in the basement of 9/11 days after the event... or we need to hear that that claim is not true. We need to hear a credible explanation as to why Bush's father was meeting with Osama's brother the morning of the attack. Etc. Etc.

The Building 7 story is particularly disturbing and I haven't heard a reasonable explanation to explain it. That doesn't mean there isn't one better than the conspiracists'. I just havent heard it.

It's like evolution. I'm prepared to accept another explanation for how we got here. But cooky guys in the sky isn't one of them.

Sorry about the Paxil comment, I was echoing Bill. I understand that depression has nothing to do with paranoia so Paxil would not be of any use to people that cling to conspiracy theories.

Maybe Lithium would have been a better choice of words?

Zak,

I don't know if it'll answer all your questions, but Popular Science did a pretty good job of debunking 9/11 myths.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

NEW RULE: The next national calamity cannot be explained away by an utter work of fiction like the Warren Report or the 9/11 Commission Report.

NEW RULE: Utter works of fiction like the 9/11 Commission Report deserve as many snarky remarks from smug late-night TeeVee hosts as do the “conspiracy theories.”

NEW RULE: You are not allowed compare every theory you don’t like to Bigfoot or UFOs.

he has his own sort of conspiracy theory concerning biology

Good point, Bill is no poster boy for rational thought.

A document such as "Operation Northwoods" pretty much proved that there a certain thinking that some of "our own" who perish in false flag operations would be suitable to further some goals. In this case 9/11 served as the New Pearl harbor that the neocons atleast needed (just read Rebuilding America's defences - PNAC), I'm pretty sure there are many dems who unofficially support the imperialist agenda. Let's face it, 9/11 was a golden opportunity to go with those goals and there are many high rank individuals who have raised concerns about what happened on 9/11.

When it comes to 9/11 the governemnt pretty much examined it's own failures and didn't fire anyone involved with their failures to do their jobs. On any common day all the four planes would've been shot down before they could've come closer to their destinations. WTC7 remains unxplained and when wearechange confronted Zelikow about WTC7 he was sweating like a pig and then fled the scene because he could't answer questions about WTC7. It is remarkable that it collapsed actually, considering that WTC and/or 6 were a lot more damaged from the debris from WTC1 and 2 and had far larger fires than building 1, 2 and 7 yet they did not collapse.

Hear the scepticism from others: http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/6339

Michael Meacher, British MP, "this war on terrorism is bogus": http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

1984,

You're right, our government always shoots down loaded commercial airliners that stray from their flight plan. Like for instance.... uh... well... maybe they haven't yet, but... It's official government policy.

This is too fun ;-)

You're right, our government always shoots down loaded commercial airliners that stray from their flight plan. Like for instance....

Like for instance that Iranian airliner they shot down, for instance ;)

Even if 9-11 conspiracy "nuts" are indeed "nuts", the kind of investigation of 9-11 carried out by the Bush administration could not have been more conducive to conspiracy theorizing than it has been. Consider just the fact that WTC-7 (a 47-story building that was not hit by planes loaded with jet fuel) fell at near free-fall speed into its own footprint on the afternoon of Sept. 11. Look at the composition of the 9-11 commission:

Kean - Professional Politician

Hamilton – Lawyer and professional politician

Ben-Veniste – Lawyer and professional politician

Fred Fielding – Lawyer

Kerrey – degree in pharmacy, war hero, operated fitness centers, politician

Gorton – Lawyer, politician

Gorelick – attorney

John Lehman – Ph. D. in international relations, Naval Officer, Secretary of the Navy

Roemer – PhD in American Government, politician

Thompson – Lawyer, politician

Anyone see any scientists, or better, structural engineers here? Nope - no Richard Feynman here. Not a single one of these guys is likely to have worried at all about the things that the Loose change "nuts" have raised.

It is all well and good to laugh about people not attributing the collapse of the twin towers to planes crashing into them, but WTC-7 provided the closest thing one might imagine to a control experiment (other than having one of the towers themselves in the WTC-7 role). If you had the responsibility of investigating this whole affair, or had the responsibility of funding such an investigation, would you have recommended that NIST wait the investigation of WTC-7 for six years? (and counting...http://www.nist.gov/publicaffairs/releases/wtc062907.html) I would think that if one were interested in extinguishing 9-11 conspiracy theories, this would have been a top priority.

They may not shoot them down, but they have fighters next to planes off flight paths very quickly. Look up what happened to the golfer Payne Stewarts plane they had fighters there quickly and that happened down in Florida. Compare that to DC which is the most protected airspace in the world, and they couldn't get fighter jets up to stop the plane that hit the pentagon even though they knew planes had been hijacked. Use your brain.

Syngas...

Fun? Look, I'm agnostic about it all, but one can be so sceptical of almost anything so that you dismiss anything without actually studying the other arguments that are out there. Both German and Russian officials have correctly pointed out that the airforce should've been intercepting those aircrafts pretty quickly after it was known that they've been hijacked and it was known very early on...well, there was a bit of confusion about whether it was part of the exercises that were held on that day or if the hijackings were real.

Do as I did, read over at www.cooperativeresearch.org Make up your own mind...and try to avoid coming up with stupid crap like "Do most Americans even know that a third office building, far smaller than the Towers, was also lost on that day? Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane." http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-23.html#feature

Now that is some extremely poor pseudo-scepticism.

Some of the dumbest stuff I've read about 9/11 are from those who make fun of conspiracy theorist.

I recommend 911blogger for alternative viewpoints on 911.

"But how do you explain how Building 7 fell? The 47 story building that wasn't hit by any plane, that collapsed."

See, this is the crap that makes you Conspiracy Dip-wad's look retarded. It is well documented by knowledgeable, accredited, and pretty obvious WHY Building 7 fell. The most obvious is, IT WAS RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWERS, DUH! And it was seriously damaged by two large neighboring structures Violently coming down next (and on top) to it, which scooped out the entire lobby section of the building.

Listen guys, it comes down to the fact that I prefer to listen to people who have a clue about structural engineering and can explain in detail all the numerous worse case scenarios that lead to the destruction of these structures. As opposed to some agoraphobic nutwad with a high school education, or some jerk-off collage students who have to constantly change their viewpoint constantly (The Loose Change morons) because of documented fact and structural knowledge destroy their previous stance.

You conspiracy nuts, especially ANYONE who brings up Building 7 (right across the street, dammit), should always be put in the corner with a pointy hat that has "MORON" written on it. You distract people from real things to rant and rave about. like, ohhh.... GETTING OUT OF IRAQ!?!?!!!!

Right, building 7 fell because the lobby was scooped out. Even though there is no damage on the outside. Compare how stupid that argument is when you look at the damage to WTC 4,5,6 and notice that they didn't collapse into there own footprint. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html This is how buildings act structurally, they don't collapse into their own footprint at freefall speed because of fires and structural damage.

Nivek and Syngas (especially you, Nivek), your arguments are based on ad hom attacks against individuals and not reasoned analyses of the attacks themselves. As Norm suggests in the commenting policy, "Criticize ideas. Do not criticize people. This means do not substitute criticism of the person for criticism of the idea." The Official Explanation leaves many questions unanswered. It is not loony tunes to reject that explanation, or to deduce that the 9/11 Commission engaged in a cover-up. Until those questions are answered satisfactorily, it is entirely reasonable for people to formulate alternate theories.

I believe that because Maher's bit was all about criticizing the ideas of conspiracy theorists, it is entirely fair to agree or disagree with him without violating Norm's policy.

Nivek,

...listen to people who have a clue about structural engineering...

Hey, I'd love to! One thing is clear, these guys don't seem to think the issue is as obvious as you seem to think ii is:

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."

The PhDs at NIST who have been actively investigating this for two years (after 4 years of not investigating it) seem to think that the WTC-7 collapse is a bit more complicated than your "air-tight analysis" would indicate.

I see a lot of arguments in which the educational level of proponents and opponents of a given position on one issue or another are bandied about. Obviously, educational achievment is a big factor in establishing someone's credibility. However, one can find supporters of creation "science" with PhDs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/) and people who are still pushing cold fusion (you'll be happy to know that Steven Jones, a Physics professor and 9-11 conspiracy buff, was also a cold-fusionaire). Ultimately it is the quality of the evidence one brings in support of one's position that counts - and your arguments are ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority.

Tim,

What would be the motive for bringing down an evacuated building few people outside of New York even knew existed? If you think 9/11 was an inside job, the shock value had already been achieved - building 7 didn't make the events of 9/11 any more alarming than it already was. It would be like throwing a match on an inferno - senseless.

thanks syngas. i'll check it out.

Oh

The building lobby facing the Trade Centers was scooped out, and Building 7 also didn't have a standard structural frame, so that damage was a main factor in it's eventual collapse. On top of fueled fires that weakened and compromised the steel, and that firefighters we're busy trying to find people in the rubble than save a totaled building, there really isn't that much room for debate on this. well, to you people there is, but I personally find that the "evidence" you people reflect on is shaky at best (and I'm being very polite at calling it shaky) to know is that most conspiracy people cannot grasp simple logic like steel doesn't need to melt in order to compromise structural integrity when it is holding up hundreds of Tons of weight. But hey, you can believe whatever you want, but dont try to make out that the rest of us are stupid or blind. There is enough tangible stuff on the Bush administration to bitch about, I really dont think we need to make stuff up like them planning 9/11.

I thought that well written and informed popular mechanics article would quiet alot of this stupity, it's just sad that people are still pushing this "chasing your own tail" agenda.

If you think 9/11 was an inside job, the shock value had already been achieved - building 7 didn't make the events of 9/11 any more alarming than it already was.

This is an excellent question, but I don't "think 9/11 was an inside job" - all my posts concern the issue of whether the government has done an adequate job of putting this possibility to rest. As a physical scientist, I'm biased - I tend to think that physical evidence trumps everything. If you have done a thorough analysis of the collapse of WTC-7 and you think there is an airtight case for a "non-conspiratorial" explanation, you don't ever need to get into the murkier waters of imputing motive.

If you had hoped that I would offer something to the effect that Silverstein stood to make more money by taking out WTC-7 or that it was important to take out WTC-7 for some other nefarious reason involving CIA offices - sorry to disappoint. I will only go this far: I don't put anything past the thugs running the Bush administration. But that is a rant for another thread.

From that WELL-INFORMED article...

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

Tim,

The Molten Steel theory debunked here

We need to hear a credible explanation as to why Bush's father was meeting with Osama's brother the morning of the attack.

Zak, this statement is misleading. 9/11 myths.com does a good job of clarifying this claim.

If you think 9/11 was an inside job, the shock value had already been achieved - building 7 didn't make the events of 9/11 any more alarming than it already was.

WTC7 was where SEC documents pertaining to the WorldCom and other insider trading investigations were being held.

"Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

WTC7 also housed the headquarter for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was investigating allegations of sexual discrimination against Morgan Stanley at the time of the attacks.

I read over the site, syngas... i'm convinced.... they do a good job of refuting many of the conspiracy theory's points. That much as enough for me.

do you know of any sites that refute the other stuff? the Bin Ladens flown out of the country, or that Bush Sr. was meeting with Bin Ladens that morning?

Just checked out the other 911myths site joann, thanks.... very helpful.

My last comment on the 9-11 matter (Like Norm, I'm also weary of this stuff):

I have some sympathy for Firi's opening salvo

I don't know why everyone hates 9/11 conspiracy theorists so much. Even if they're wrong, think about what they are doing. They're using critical analysis to arrive at a [different] conclusion. It's basically science. The United States needs more critical analysis, not less. Even if 9/11 conspiracy theorists are 100 percent incorrect, I don't think that they should be scoffed at, called names, and demoralized. Their efforts should be recognized and applauded at least.

If a thorough job of answerng the questions raised by conspiracy theorists has been performed and the conspiracy theorists persist in their claims or constantly shift their complaints, then I understand the irratation with them. My complaint was that the most disturbingly plausible aspect of their theories, the WTC-7 collapse, was not thoroughly investigated as fast as possible - that is all. I don't have to subscribe to any or all of the rest of their positions to feel that way about it. I have tremendous respect for the scientists at NIST - I know several scientists working there personally - they should have been given the resources to finish this investigation quickly. Sundar's explanation of why WTC-7 was put on hold, that they had to finish their work on the towers first, doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that NIST managers would actually agree with me on that. My suspicion is that an administration that thinks that throwing away $500 billion on a useless war is OK couldn't be bothered to fund this investigation at a level necessary to finish it years ago.

"Even if they're wrong, think about what they are doing. They're using critical analysis to arrive at a [different] conclusion. It's basically science."

No, it's the exact opposite of science. Science adjusts its theories upon examining the evidence. These conspiracy theories ignore mountains of evidence, including documentaries by PBS (hardly Bush supporters) and article by Popular Mechanics, which explain in great detail how the towers fell.

I'm sorry, but I've talked to these folks. And I've asked them, well, if you don't believe those were planes crashing into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, where do you think all those people who were on those missing flights went? They will actually tell you that government kidnapped those people and has them hidden away somewhere. I'd love to see them tell the families of those people who died on those planes that it didn't really happen.

I'm sorry, but when people go to those extremes to explain their illogical theories - to try to get them to hold together, when there are so many easy arguments against those theories, then, yes, they absolutely should be compared with UFOologists, Big Foot hunters and tarot readers.

They may be good people, they may really believe what they say they do (I'm sure they do - I watch them speak all the time in Union Square), they may even feel like they're doing something good for their country, but they are unfortunately delusioned.

"WTC7 also housed the headquarter for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was investigating allegations of sexual discrimination against Morgan Stanley at the time of the attacks."

This is one of those arguments that might seem to carry some weight which dissolves under gentle scrutiny. There are probably hundreds of buildings that have similar types of information in them, for one thing. This is kinda like the Christian who thinks the church was spared in a fire, by God, while ignoring that 100 other churches got burned down. Except that in this case, you're trying to attribute special significance to a building which was destroyed, while ignoring the fact that there's sensitive information in every commercial building in Manhattan.

We really need to have mandatory critical thinking classes in our classrooms, so people can learn to see through these sorts of flimsy arguments.

"No, it's the exact opposite of science."

I didn't mean every bit of it. The reasonable parts that still hold were what I was referring to, not the parts such as the government kidnapped the people on the flight(s), which is uncorroborated. I also used the term "basically," because I know it's not definitively science.

Robert S., It's interesting that you bring up Christianity in your argument, because the 9/11 conspiracy debunking arguments are peppered with the same condescending certainty one finds at creationist and intelligent design websites. There's this Great Truth, see -- that God created you, say, or that America would never perpetrate a false-flag terrorist attack -- and anyone who has the audacity to challenge the Great Truth must be silenced with ridicule and name calling. It doesn't matter that the Great Truth was arrived at sans evidence, cuz, well, it's the Great Truth, dammit, and everyone knows it's true. What's the matter? Never heard of the Great Truth before? Idiot. Jerkwad. Moron.

See how it works? It's precisely why so many people still believe Saddam was behind 9/11, or that Oliver North warned us about Osama bin Laden way back in 1986, Or that God created us just as we are 6,000 years ago, and so forth. Once the conclusion is reached, contrary evidence and rational conjecture exist simply to be ridiculed.

Are you satisfied with the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks? Are all your questions answered? Do you prefer that they remain unanswered for fear of how horrible the truth might turn out to be? That’s what it sounds like to me.

We really need to have mandatory critical thinking classes in our classrooms, so people can learn to see through these sorts of flimsy arguments

Amen!

Are you satisfied with the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks? Are all your questions answered? Do you prefer that they remain unanswered for fear of how horrible the truth might turn out to be? That’s what it sounds like to me.

All of the questions have been addressed. What is it that you don't agree with vis-à-vis the answers given in the links that Syngas I linked to?

"See how it works?"

Yes, I do. I saw no evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, so I don't believe that. I see no evidence that we were created 6,000 years ago, so I don't believe that. And I see no evidence that the Bush administration engineered 9/11, so I don't believe that.

That's how skepticism really works. You don't allow your skepticism to lapse just because people of your own political bent believe something for which they can offer no evidence.

"Are you satisfied with the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks? Are all your questions answered? Do you prefer that they remain unanswered for fear of how horrible the truth might turn out to be? That’s what it sounds like to me."

No. You seem to assume I haven't examined any of the "evidence" offered by the conspiracy crowd. I have - and found it entirely unconvincing. And as I said, both PBS and Popular Mechanics have done plenty to debunk their theories. Now, you're rather condescendingly trying to suggest that I haven't examined the so-called evidence. Have you watch the PBS documentary "Why the Towers Fell"? Have you read the Popular Mechanics articles? If not, you've just disqualified yourself from this argument.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole - I'm sure you're a nice bloke. But I'm really tired of conspiracy theorists telling me I haven't considered the evidence, when they've plainly been strenuously avoiding any facts which conflict with what they want to believe.

Cheers.

The issue that seems most important is that this won't go away becouse it is unresolved, and I find it disturbing that the debate ends up with personal attacks and tricky assumptions on both sides. The debate is necessary, yet it keeps getting slammed! Why? Firi's comment (2nd) is on the money! Furthermore, I find it naive to rule out that there is a psychological war happening between us right now. If you arent part of concsious perpetration, why deny public debate? Although it does seem the fearful and gullible might get innocently sucked into it. I actually respect the perpetrators' ability to fool so many people and I eagerly learn their techniques and how it is done. September Clues is a good start I recommend. thanks.

Whoops. Didn't mean to post anonymously at 3:09 above. That was me.

what I mean to say is that I am flabbergasted at how little proper debate has occured... I t seems there should have been 100 times more debate on the issues for something so big. Yet we always find someone like Nivek seemingly speaking with a false hope of their own fear...??

Get us past the part where at a minimum dozens and more likely hundreds would have to be in on it. Further don't forget that correlation is not causation, and the lack of explanation doesn't make your default assumptions true. That really is like the true believers if you can't prove God does not exist he does. If you can't prove me a satisfactory argument for every detail 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy it was. And finally layoff the condescending straw-man arguments you malcontent.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Is 'onegoodmove' the same person as 'Norm'?

JoAnn, From what I can see scanning the above thread, the only questions you addressed were the Bush/BinLaden meeting and the molten steel. Those two things were never very big deals to me, so I never bothered with them. The question that are left unanswered are: 1.) Why did it take NORAD so long to respond? 2.) Why did NORAD & FAA representatives lie during their testimony? 3.) Why hasn't the Justice Dept. responded to the 9/11 Commission's request for an investigation into NORAD's & FAA's misleading testimony? 4.) Why did numerous govt. officials repeatedly contend that "no one predicted terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings" when clearly documented NORAD excercises predicted just that? And why haven't critical follow-up questions been asked on that topic? You provided links, so I will too. First, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=911+press+for+truth&total=303&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 Then read this: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project And then tell me that you don't have any unanswered questions.

Also, as for the idea that our gov't would've shot down those airliners if they hadn't wanted them to crash into the towers. That's some very creative nonsense.

As most folks know, pre-9/11 it was policy not to engage hijacked planes, precisely because they usually only wanted money and would simply land the plane somewhere without harming the passengers, as long as they thought they would get what they wanted. It was unexpected when the hijackers turned those passengers into human ammunition - despite warnings about Osama Bin Laden being determined to attack. Hijacking situations were simply never treated that way.

Do conspiracy theorist folks really have that short a memory? Or is this another example of attempting to shape the facts to fit the theory? Or, really, an attempt to ignore the facts that don't fit the theory.

mani, i was under the same impression as you that there hasnt been enough debate. i think the trouble is the information is out there but not enough of us (like me until today) read it. The conspiracy stuff is imprinted on our minds because it's dramatic but apparently on further inspection, most of what they're spouting is not true.

But I agree with another poster earlier that conspiracy theorists shouldnt be reprimanded for what they're doing They should be applauded for presenting alternate theories. And if those theories are plausible, let them be investigated and tossed out if they're wrong.

There are many examples of conspiracies in the past, that turned out to be true. So it's not like some of what they claim isn't possible. It is. There is at least an element within the US government and US business (and every gov't and business community for that matter) that is corrupt and that is doing nefarious stuff. But it doesnt mean every dramatic event is the result of a conspiracy.

There is one conspiracy that I do agree with and that is plausible and that has been shown possible, though not beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that is the stolen 2000 election (and probably 2004 as well). I think the trouble with many is they ridicule conspiracy theorists because they cant fathom that "their guy" could do something like that. Well, their guy can. And our guy can too. Politics is rarely based on what's morally good or bad. It's based on what's in the interest of those in or seeking power.

the lack of explanation doesn't make your default assumptions true.

True, but we are not dealing simply with a lack of explanation, we are dealing with an intentionally inadequate explanation.

you malcontent

:-p

As most folks know, pre-9/11 it was policy not to engage hijacked planes, precisely because they usually only wanted money and would simply land the plane somewhere without harming the passengers, as long as they thought they would get what they wanted.

Again with the condescension.

As anyone with an internet connection can determine,

These planes within NORAD’s system routinely scrambled after other aircraft. Often the goal was drug interdiction. General Ralph Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, said that before 9/11, “Normally, our units [flew] 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission.” [Federal News Service, 10/25/01] In 2000, there were 425 “unknowns”—pilots who didn’t file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters were scrambled in response to 129 of those cases, when problems were not immediately resolved. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01]

From the Complete 911 Timeline:

Before 9/11, the web sites of many of these bases used terms like “combat ready,”“five minute alert,”“highest state of readiness,” and so on, indicating they should have been able to quickly respond as well. For instance, the web site for Andrews Air Force Base next to Washington boasted that it hosted two “combat ready” squadrons, “capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency.” The District of Columbia Air National Guard was stationed at Andrews, and its web site claimed its mission was “to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.” Both web sites changed on September 12, 2001, and the phrases suggesting such quick response capability were removed. [DC Military website, DCANG Home Page (before and after the change)] Bases at Westfield, Massachusetts; Syracuse, New York; and Hartford, Connecticut, also promised high readiness status, and these bases would have been in good positions to defend the skies on 9/11.

It's true that they are usually instructed not to shoot down the planes in the even of a highjacking, but that is usually long after the fighters have been scrambled. On 9/11, however, the planes weren't scrambled for over two hours. One must wonder, "por que?" no?

I think the trouble with many is they ridicule conspiracy theorists because they cant fathom that "their guy" could do something like that. Well, their guy can. And our guy can too. Politics is rarely based on what's morally good or bad. It's based on what's in the interest of those in or seeking power.

True that.

Darn! I'm late to the party and missed all the fun. One of the things I really like about this site is the reasoned and oftimes witty debate that takes place here. Little did I suspect that there were conspiracy loonies lurking in the background. Thanks to Jim for the laughs. As one of those engineering dudes, (specifically materials and solid state physics) I found his arguments very comical. The thing I found most curious is the lack of alternative rational explanation. Apparently no one noticed the extensive preparation necessary for a controlled demolition of a building. You know, drilling into columns to plant exquisitely timed explosives,cutting carefully selected beams to direct the fall. No one noticed the distinctively sheared structures that can only be produced by shaped charges. There is lots of footage of the rubble. Perhaps someone could point out the evidence for me.

So I point out that highjacked planes were never shot down and you point to an example which includes no hijacked planes, but "unknowns" and planes likely to be carrying drugs. Those airliners were not "unknowns."

Also, these jetliners were full of fuel - they didn't travel far before they met their targets, so - even if scrambling jets were the right thing to do - they may found out too late that they were hijacked to do anything about it. Besides, even if they did take too long to scramble jets, that does not a conspiracy theory make. This really is the same line of "let's rely on the gaps" thinking that has ID proponents saying that if there's a perceived gap in evolutionary theory, then Yahweh really must've created us out of clay on the 6th day.

"I think the trouble with many is they ridicule conspiracy theorists because they cant fathom that "their guy" could do something like that."

No. It's because the evidence is non-existent.

Did you see the movie The Game? The main weakness of that movie, I thought, was there's no way all the intricate details could've been planned out to trick that guy into thinking he was really part of a giant conspiracy. It was simply unrealistic. The type of planning it would take for our gov't to pull off 9/11 (in the way the conspiracy theorist describe) would take detailed planning over years on an order of magnitude that would not go undetected - as many here have already pointed out. Though this serious point is always simply ignored.

FYI. This is what a shaped charge does to structural steel. You would have to plant several hundred of these in just the right locations to take down a steel frame structure in a contolled fashion. As well as place tons of conventional explosives to take out the reinforced concrete columns. If you were to consult a competent and malevolent engineer he would probably advise you to attack the upper third of a very tall structure where the structure is the weakest. You could then hope to convert the stored potential energy in the structure into good old fashioned kinetic energy and hammer the structure down. Sound familiar?

The main "smoking gun" for me is the speed at which the towers collapsed. At freefall, in a vacuum, from 415 meters, an object will fall to the ground in 9.2 seconds. The towers collapsed in approximately 10 and 12 seconds, according to Popular Mechanics. Some time ago I did the math taking into account conservation of momentum, again assuming a vacuum and also assuming that the floors were simply floating; i.e., that no force was wasted breaking the floors' supports. I came up with a time of over 15 seconds. (Forgive me, I'm going from memory here, and don't have time today to repeat this. If there is interest, I can get to it on Monday or Tuesday. If you're curious and have some time to kill, all the physics and math you need were taught in high school, and refreshers are available on the Intarweb.) Now, considering that there IS in fact some component of force lost in breaking the supports, and air resistance IS in play, it would actually have taken significantly longer for the towers to collapse to the ground. One estimate I remember seeing was 45 seconds; I do not have the educational background to speak to its accuracy, but I will say that sounds right to me.

Popular Mechanics did not address this, except briefly in the book, in the caption of a picture, which they claim shows debris falling away from the building faster than the "destruction zone". Since this debris does not have undamaged portions of building beneath it, I view this as inconclusive at best.

Now, to address some other concerns raised in this thread.

Robert S.: "The type of planning it would take for our gov't to pull off 9/11 (in the way the conspiracy theorist describe) would take detailed planning over years on an order of magnitude that would not go undetected - as many here have already pointed out. Though this serious point is always simply ignored." -- I agree, it seems like an uphill battle, but this does not constitute evidence.

Peter G.: "Apparently no one noticed the extensive preparation necessary for a controlled demolition of a building." -- I agree, it would take some time, but probably not as much time as a normal demolition, since they obviously weren't concerned about damage being done. In a psychological attack like this, more damage is better.

Also from Peter G.: "Little did I suspect that there were conspiracy loonies lurking in the background." -- Ad hominem attack aside, I would like to address the use of the word "conspiracy", and particularly the phrase "conspiracy theory". Both sides in this believe their own conspiracy theory. Proponents of the "official explanation" use this phrase in a derogatory, and dismissive, way. Simply bandying this phrase about will not convince me of much, however.

From Norm: "Get us past the part where at a minimum dozens and more likely hundreds would have to be in on it." -- That is an excellent point, and one for which I don't have a conclusive answer. This is why we want a thorough investigation. One idea I've seen though is that many who were involved did not realize the scope of the plan until it was too late, at which point they really couldn't say anything. The fact is, we don't know how many people were involved. We don't know what happened to the actual flights in question. And we want to know.

user-pic

Just like it's hard for most people to understand the damge nthat can be created by their church, most people cannot even comprehend their own government betraying them. Guess what? This is the way it is.

One idea I've seen though is that many who were involved did not realize the scope of the plan until it was too late, at which point they really couldn't say anything.

Why?

Actually I would like to see to see your calculation Teodomiro. I would like to point out though that the parts of the towers above the impact zones did go into free fall when the structure failed and the tens of thousands of tons of material contained therein had more than enough energy to squash the rest of the towers with very little delay. A few seconds in fact. Applying Occam's razor here: the alternative is large numbers of people installing tons of explosives unobserved that remained undisturbed by the impact of a couple of airliners until they are remotely detonated. I'll go with the simple explanation.

Poor poor Peter,

Use your brain once in a while will ya? Obviously, those explosives could have been installed when the buildings were being erected. Now we know where Dubya was when he went AWOL!

Syngas you are right. It's a good thing no one said: Hey was does this button do? before the plot had thickened.

Obviously, those explosives could have been installed when the buildings were being erected. Now we know where Dubya was when he went AWOL!

Syngas, ROFL! And all this time I thought he was snorting coke and quaffing brewskies. Now it all bgins to make sense...

Can some one please re-hash the OCT (official conspiracy theory) for us?

No, but seriously, in say, 200 words or less, a brief schematic of the OCT, please? Oh yes, please do so without the story sounding as it does - totally absurd.

... and some food for thought ...

Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9 Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination: 7 Days until an investigation was ordered into the Challenger disaster: 7 Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the sinking of the Titanic: 6 Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the 9/11 attacks: 411 Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million

Amount of money authorized by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (ISI), to be sent to suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11: $100,000 USD Number of references in the Final Report to foreign governments providing funding for al-Qaeda operatives: 0 references

Number of hours of testimony given by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds concerning cover-ups by officials at FBI Headquarters: 3 and a half hours

... oh ya, check out these nuts:

The 911 Whistle Blowers:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795&hl=en

Wake up.

Okay supsi.... Would you use a shorter nick please? When Mathias Rust flew his plane through what was and is the most heavily defended airspace on the planet and landed in Red Square no one was killed but it was sufficiently embarassing to cause many heads to roll in the Soviet Air Defense Ministry. That's not how things are done around here. The fact there were screw ups too numerous to mention leading up to 911 does not mean there was a conspiracy to cause it but it gives plenty of good reasons not to look to closely at why. If you want to know who dropped the ball check the list of Medal of Freedom recipients. Slight alteration to the usual quotation: Never attribute to conspiracy what can fully be explained by stupidity.

Peter G.

Fine, don't answer my simple question.

If we accept your Moscow comparison, well then how many heads rolled after 911?

Nil.

Gee, I guess that, in itself, would make it a ..... oh no , a conspiracy!

But there was no "conspiracy", right? So if we follow thru with your logic, then they rightfully deserved those medals! Since there was no "conspiracy" to cover their f-ups, no?

And the OCT's pancake collapse theory? Then ... where are the pancakes? What explains the mid-air VAPORIZATION of the TOP sections of the towers?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Again, please wake up and smell the fascism - this can not be explained by "stupidity".

I give up. The logic of my adversary resembles the peace of God..

I Don't Subscribe To Any Official Conspiracy Theory, I Just Want To Ask Questions And Get Answers.

Can We Agree That Buildings Are Built To Stay Up? If So, Why Didn't The Towers Topple To The Side And Leave Most Of The Structure Intact Below The Damaged Parts? Try It With An Erector Set Or If You Don't Have One Of Those, Try Jenga. It Does Raise A Question. Now Building 7 Dropping Into It's Footprint Also Makes Me Wonder. It Might Have Failed Catastrophically, But Why Hasn't This Happened In Other High-Rise Fires? (Spanish High-Rise Fire Is A Particularily Good Example.) And I Also Want To Ask Why We Are To Take The Word Of The Government As Gospel? I Thought This Site Was For Free Thinking, And The Questioning Of The "Official" Line. Are We Supposed To Believe Diebold Machines Actually Can't Be Hacked? Do We Believe Iraq Actually Had WMD? If Not, Then Why The Ad Hom Attacks On those Who Are Putting Forth New Ideas? Can We Stop The Ad Homs, And Give Rational Debate With Logic And Evidence A Chance?

...in that it transcends understanding

Peter G.

With all due respect, your cowardice is not surpising.

And to norm, regarding the number of people that would have to be involved (indirectly assumed in your last response), I would humbly submit the following:

"9/11 - a 7-man job"

(please excuse the amount of text - the full piece is available here:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/search?q=7+man+job )

"But 9/11 Was Much Bigger

But 9/11 would have involved a much bigger conspiracy theory, which – unlike the examples above – would have been too big to keep quiet. Right?

Not necessarily.

NATO's Italian terror campaign would have involved quite a few people.

Pearl Harbor, according to top historians, involved hundreds of people.

9/11, in contrast, could have involved fewer people.

Indeed, one could argue that it involved ONE person. Let's say -- just as an example randomly pulled out of a hat -- Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney was apparently in charge of the entire U.S. government’s counter-terrorism program prior to 9/11, and in charge of ALL 5 of the war games which occurred on 9/11, and Mr. Cheney also coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. See this CNN article; and this essay. Being in charge of all counter-terrorism in the U.S., Cheney was probably the person who moved up major war games so that they would overlap with games and terror drills already planned for 9/11. And see this interview of the former head of the Star Wars program and a former Air Force colonel.

And Cheney is the one who monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon and -- when a military man asked "do the orders still stand?" -- Cheney responded affirmatively:

"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Watch the video for yourself.

In addition, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that Cheney was in charge of the entire military and the secret service during the 9/11 attacks, that the secret service has its own communications system which is parallel to and can even cut into normal military communication channels.

Most people acknowledge that Cheney is one of the most powerful vice presidents in history. In addition, Cheney has a long-standing history of falsifying and manipulating facts and taking brutal actions in furtherance of his imperial goals. For example, in the 70's -- Cheney was instrumental in generating fake intelligence exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to undermine coexistence between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which conveniently justified huge amounts of cold war spending. See also this article. And the former director of the CIA accused Cheney of overseeing torture policies. Colin Powell's former chief of staff also stated that Dick Cheney is guilty of war crimes. I'm not trying to be long-winded about Mr. Cheney's resume. I'm simply pointing out that Mr. Cheney seems to have the ability to make large U.S. policy decisions and take sweeping actions -- and to order others to do so -- without much problem.

Now, of course, there was probably more than one person involved in this hypothetical example. Mr. Cheney would probably have had 1 guy manning the secret service communications system and another guy sitting at a computer inserting false radar blips onto air traffic controllers' screens. But this demonstrates that you didn’t need thousands to pull off 9/11.

Wrecking Crew

Let’s take it one step further. How many people would it have taken to demolish World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 with bombs? Hundreds? Thousands?

How about 3.

Specifically, there was plenty of opportunity to plant bombs in the Twin Towers. By way of example only:

Bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly and inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers in the weeks preceding 9/11

There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved

The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11

And, as an interesting coincidence, a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers

So here's a potential scenario:

One guy in the Bush-linked security company lets in the bomb-setters;

A 2-man crew of demolition experts sets the radio-controlled explosives while everyone is out of the building;

And the same crew detonates the explosives using a radio transceiver.

That adds only 3 more guys.

So, we're now up to perhaps 7 people total to pull off 9/11 (Cheney, another guy making sure intelligence warnings aren't acted on, the secret service agent and the the radar guy, the security guy and the two-man demolition crew)."

I've never seen anybody capitalize every word like you just did Error.

Are you sending a code to somebody? Are you Al Qaeda?

They're coming to take me away! To the Funny Farm!

Sygnas

No, It's Just The Way I Learned To Type, And A Bad Habit I Never Broke. Might I Get You To respond To The Meat Of The Post I Made Rather Than The Odd Way I Type?

Coward you say. I laugh at danger...then I hide till it goes away.

Supsi,

One Comment, If I May.
The Sheer Amount Of Explosives Needed For A 2 Man Demo Crew Would Have Overloaded Them, Or Could Have Been Spotted By A Passerby. Not Saying Explosives Were Or Were Not Used, But 2 People Would Have A VERY Hard Time Planting That Much Explosive Compound.

Dear Peter G.

The following response does not involve a sick conspiracy - it is a merely a bad joke:

http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/sully.wav

;-)

Dear Errorzero, me thinks you miss the point.

By the way supsi..whatever,your hypothesis would require at least one more man. It needs someone to operate the com link and transporter to the mothership orbiting Uranus.

By the way supsi..whatever,your hypothesis would require at least one more man. It needs someone to operate the com link and transporter to the mothership orbiting Uranus.

Dear Peter G.

Arguments involving valley-boy interjections of "whatever" suggest we step away for a moment and reflect (i.e. read) on newly presented evidence ...

Peter G.

Ad Hom Attacks Do Not A Debate Make. If It Is Possible, Could The Attack Responses Stop, And The Logic Responses Start?

It's been fun guys, have a good night. Sweet dreams ;-)

Very well Errorzero. You asked good questions and I will answer. Buildings are indeed designed to stand up. The towers wer in fact, designed to withstand a strike, intentionally or accidentally of the largest commercial aircraft then flying; the Boing 707. That was a lesson learned from the Empire State building. Flying a fully fuel laden at maximum throttle into the building was not anticipated. Much of the supporting steel structure was sheared off and the remainder was exposed to very high temperature combustion from jet fuel. The fire insulation protecting the steel was rated for one hour of protection against a normal type fire and was designed to work in conjunction with the fire suppression system. This was destroyed by the impact. Gravity does the rest. I don't believe any aircraft were involved in the Spanish (Brazilian?) high rise fire. A priori there is no reason to believe anything any government says without checking.

Peter G. and Errorzero

"The towers wer in fact, designed to withstand a strike, intentionally or accidentally of the largest commercial aircraft then flying; the Boing 707. "

True and False.

The statement is true, but, for example Albert De Martini was confident that it could take multiple hits from such aircraft. Here is a quick 44 second clip:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3281135121622917423&q=de+martini&hl=en

"Much of the supporting steel structure was sheared off..."

This statement is perplexing - one of the biggest single criticisms of the OCT with respect to towers 1 and 2, is the fact that the supporting steel structue WAS NOT SHEARED OFF BECAUSE THEY WERE THE 47 CENTRE SUPPORT COLUMNS IN THE CORES OF THE BUILDINGS.

Again, what we see at the end of the collapse are these columns being VAPORIZED in mid-air - how is this explained - by "Gravity"?

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html#disintegrate

(Now, I don't advocate the "Star Wars" theory, but the OCT can not explain the mid-air vaporziation without use of explosives)

"...and the remainder was exposed to very high temperature combustion from jet fuel."

Very high temperature?

Then I guess to believe your conspiracy theory, Peter G., this lady must be some sort of robot super-hero, no?

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Cintron

"I don't believe any aircraft were involved in the Spanish (Brazilian?) high rise fire."

Agreed. And any OCT of 911 has to account for all of the observed phenomenon, of which this OCT fails miserably.

Fellow chessplayer here and really enjoy your site.

That said, there are serious problems with the official conspiracy theory that need to be fully and independently investigated.

One might ask "Does the Bush Administration ever lie about anything?"

No! They lie about EVERYTHING.

Oh, Dr. Feynman, where are you when we need you most.

Couple things:

--molten metal

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

--Popular Mechanics

Read Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" it rips the heart out of the magazine's disingenuous hit piece.

The truth will out.

It seems to be that the main issue that many people have with conspiracy theorists is, as Norm pointed out, erroneous correlation. For example, the bomb-sniffing dogs being removed from the building(s). If there were bombs present, then this would be something worth pursuing, but first we need to determine if bombs were present in the first place for this argument to hold at all. It seems like many conspiracy theorists have seen this removal of anti-bomb dogs and taken this to mean that there must have been bombs within the buildings, when this might not be the case at all. The dogs could have been removed for completely different reasons unrelated to 9/11.

This is just one example, but there are others, as well. Another would be seeing molten metal and positing that thermite or some such was at play, when the molten metal could have been something else entirely, or the result of something other than thermite. This does not stop theorists from using this in their "It was bombed" argument, though.

I believe that when these fallacies and their kind are corrected, it will either make or break the 9/11 controversies.

Okay. I wound up with some free time this evening, so I’m going to present my math now. I’m also going to show, step by step, exactly how I created my spreadsheet, since I want to do that anyway, and it will show the mathematical steps involved. I use Excel 2000. The metric system will be used throughout.

So. Open up a new blank spreadsheet. In cell A1, type “Height of building:”. In cell B1, type “415”.

A3: “Floor” A4: “110” A5: “109” (And so forth, all the way down to A113: “1”. Yes, there’s a shortcut. But I’m so enamored of the idea of some of you typing it all out, I won’t share it.)

B3: “Floor Height” B4-B113: “=$B$1/110” That’s a formula that calculates the height of each floor by dividing the height of the building by the number of floors. The dollar signs simply make it an absolute reference formula, so it can be copied all the way down the column and still refer to cell B1.

C3: “Initial Velocity” C4: “0” In this column, we’ll keep track of the velocity of each floor collapse, taking into account conservation of momentum. For the rest of the column, we’ll have a formula, but we start with zero. (I am certain that some of you see a flaw here, and you are correct. We’ll get to that.)

D3: “Final Velocity Before Floor Impact” This is where we’ll calculate the velocity at the completion of traversing that particular floor. From the Kinematic Equations: Final Velocity squared = Initial Velocity squared + 2(acceleration)(distance). Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 meters/(second squared). So the formula I put in cell D4 is this: “=SQRT(C4^2 + 19.6*B4)”, and copied it down to D113.

E3: “Time Required to Traverse This Floor” We have the initial velocity and the final velocity. Summing these and dividing by two yields the average velocity. Time = Distance / Velocity. So in E4: “=B4/((C4+D4)/2)”. Copy down to E113.

F3: “Number of floors falling” This is for the momentum conservation calculation. Starting in F4 with “1” down to F113 with “110”.

G3: “Final Velocity After Floor Impact” This is where we’ll calculate the new velocity after the mass of the floor is taken into account, and momentum is conserved. Conservation of Momentum: M1 * V1 = M2 * V2. I am assuming that all floors are the same weight. As a practical matter, that means we don’t have to know the exact weight, since the formula works anyway. So each floor weighs 1 Floorweight. (If you think I’m wrong, and want to calculate the actual weight of each floor, by all means do, and let me know if you get a different answer.) Anyway, in G4: “=(F4*D4)/(F4+1)”. Again, copy it all the way down to G113.

Now we have to go back to column C. The initial velocity for each floor traversal is simply the final velocity of the previous floor, after floor impact. So in C5: “=G4”. And copy it all the way down to C113.

Now all we need to do is sum the times showing in Column E. E115: “=sum(e4:e113)”

My spreadsheet shows 14.99299042 in this cell. This is the time required for the building to collapse from the top down, ignoring air resistance and assuming that no force is used to break the floors free and that each floor’s impact are the only collisions in the system.

But as I mentioned earlier, there is a flaw in this. The building wouldn’t have collapsed from the very top down. It would presumably have started at the impact point for the plane. To resolve this, I made two small changes. C20: “0” E115: “=sum(e20:E113)”. These changes would apply to the north tower, which was struck at the 94th floor, if I remember correctly.

Now my total time shows 11.34998333. This is almost exactly the reported time it took the north tower to collapse, even according to Popular Mechanics. And remember, these calculations assume no air resistance, free-floating floors that don’t waste any force breaking free from their supports, no energy was expended grinding concrete into dust, et cetera. Frankly, I don’t know enough to model such things, and nobody would have read this if I had. As I mentioned in my previous post, I read somewhere (and forgive me, but that link died with my old hard drive last year) that someone did model it, and came up with a total time of 45 seconds. I cannot verify the accuracy of this. All I can do, and all I ask of others (you), is apply my knowledge, observations, and analytical skills to the task.

If I have made an error, by all means point it out.

syngas, Popular Mechanics Magazine did a pretty BAD job of summarizing the reasons for the collapse of the buildings. It was written in March 2005.

For one thing, it maintains the "pancake" theory of the collapse of WT1 and WT2. Most people also believe that after the NOVA program explaining it.

Guess who doesn't believe the "pancake" theory.

Why no other than the NIST in its report from October 2005!

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs82006.htm

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

Maybe that is "conclusive", but they changed their story.

Also, Popular Mechanics reports the NIST's "explanation" of WT7 collapse. However, it didn't even study it at the time!

"When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed."

As far as I know, it still hasn't reported on WT7. The above is not a conspiracy theory text, but it seems the government has not really tried to correct public misconceptions which they were responsible for.

Firi and Norm,

Your missing the point entirely as to why millions of people (and more than half the direct victims of 911) have finally woken up and want a new investigation.

How many THOUSANDS of pieces of well-linked "correlations" does it take for a coincidence-theorist - such as Norm and yourself - to be finally convinced that on basic grounds of probability analysis, we should be morally compelled to demand a new investigation by congress with full subpeona power?

Unfortunately, it seems, there exists no minimum threshhold of truly disturbing correlations that could ever convince a hardcore coincident-theorist to revisit their perspective.

On a 'related' note, you may have not seen this buried 60 minutes piece on pre-911 Iraq war plans.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8467749643639700243&q=60+minutes&total=2748&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

I know, I know, another erroneous correlation ...

Firi and Norm,

Your missing the point entirely as to why millions of people (and more than half the direct victims of 911) have finally woken up and want a new investigation.

How many THOUSANDS of pieces of well-linked "correlations" does it take for a coincidence-theorist - such as Norm and yourself - to be finally convinced that on basic grounds of probability analysis, we should be morally compelled to demand a new investigation by congress with full subpeona power?

Unfortunately, it seems, there exists no minimum threshhold of truly disturbing correlations that could ever convince a hardcore coincident-theorist to revisit their perspective.

On a 'related' note, you may have not seen this buried 60 minutes piece on pre-911 Iraq war plans.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8467749643639700243&q=60+minutes&total=2748&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

I know, I know, another erroneous correlation ...

Best line of that clip:

"Contrary to how we practice politics today in this country, there is some market for the truth"

Norm and all followers, please read:

"Silence is the death of liberty"

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/09/speak-out.html#comments

Aluminum melts at 1220F. I have all the respect in the world for firefighters but metallugists, they are not. Just in case you weren't aware, aircraft are primarily made of aluminum and there is plenty of aluminum used in commercial construction.

I don't know where you live, but if you really stayed up until 4:17 just for us, you might be suffering from OCD. If that is the case, maybe Paxil really is right for you.

I'm done.

So how about the "Let It Happen" scenario?

It surely doesn't take a cast of thousands, just a few convenient blunders and a little complicity within NORAD....i mean, fuck, the planes DID get through unopposed.

There clearly seems to be a black-hole sized accountability vacuum within the bush administration with almost every thing they have been involved with since hijacking the 2000 elections.

Regardless, the events of 9/11 have gone a long way as their pretext for a neocon style New American Century, with the Arms corporatist agenda in full swing, and the perverting of ludicrous amounts of tax money by the elite, the manipulation of global oil markets and the rolling out a technologically advanced security state to properly lock us all down with....and all given to us like a TV dinner via the corporate mass media.

Edward Bernays would be proud...Banana Republic has just gone global.

9/11 and Saddam was it?

Question everything.

BigDaddyMalcontent: No, I didn't address everything and I'm not about to. Some years ago I wasted countless hours discussing this on another blog and it turned out to be a waste of time. We discussed one detail at a time. After one point had been cleared up and demonstrated that there was no conspiracy, then someone would bring up another point and then suddenly another. These conversations can go on forever and ever without ever reaching any conclusion.

If someone could conclusively prove anything, they'd be famous à la Woodward and Watergate.

Ryan Mackey debunks Griffin's "Debunking 911 debunking".

I wonder if Griffin has debunked Mackey's debunking of of his own debunking of the debunking?

"[You're] missing the point entirely as to why millions of people (and more than half the direct victims of 911) have finally woken up and want a new investigation."

I want an investigation, too. I'd love to know more facts about 9/11 rather than back-and-forth speculation. As Jo Ann points out above, these arguments/debates can go on forever and get little, if anything, accomplished.

When I said "erroneous correlation," I mean that there are going to be numerous aspects of the 9/11 incident (or any incident) that seem like they might have something to do with it when, in fact, they don't. When I mentioned bomb-sniffing dogs, I meant that the only way bomb-sniffing dogs have any relevance to 9/11 whatsoever is if there were bombs present. So, the first step is to find out for a fact if bombs were present in the building. Otherwise, the removal of the dogs is just an isolated incident.

Bomb-sniffing dogs, jets of smoke coming out of lower portions of the towers as they fell, pictures of a seemingly molten material found within the wreckage, and so forth are only important if bombs were actually used. It's impossible to determine if bombs were or were not used with this information alone, thus there is also probability that they are isolated incidents.

I think this is what irks some people. Conspiracy theorists tout these findings as proof that the towers were bombed, when it could very well be erroneous correlation.

Good post Firi and a very good point you raise.

There are so many problems with that commission report there needs to be a better investigation for history' sake alone.

Personally I would have to hear a very, very sound argument to be convinced that the collapses were the result of preset explosives.

Considering the number of damning little secrets thi government can't keep, it is very difficult for me to believe they could have kept a big complex secret such as the one proposed by the 'inside demolition' theories?

Way too many people would have to know about it, just to set the explosives. Tons of explosives to get the effect we saw, if that were the source of the structural failure.

Hell even Cheney and his immediate henchmen can't kept their mouths shut about all manner things they have been caught at. keeping a permanent lid on something that big is the stuff of spy movies.

There are however, real peculiarities about a number of things that happened that day that were not dealt with by the report. The steel from the massive central support column might have told a lot of stories and explained the nature of the failure but that was recycled, as I understand it.

This government is so dishonest and fraudulent in such a consistant manner it is difficult not to expect the very worst.

The political manipulation and coverups started immediately and have characterized the whole 'post 9/11' era.

I have no trouble believing that Bush and Cheney and the old cohort were morally capable of such a false flag attact. But these are some of the most incompitent people to ever run a government. They literally screw up every thing they do. I could believe in fairies and cruxified gods if I could believe this gang could suddenly lose that incompitence and pull off something so big and complex. And maintain that compitence in regards to keeping it undercover.

There is a big loss to science and engineering in not having the kind of investigation the event deserved. It would be very useful to understand the dynamics of that collapse and to explain some of the other unexpected results of the event.

Considering the unique nature of the collapse the opportunity to study such an event is rare.

HKP

Read enough of Ryan Mackey's paper to see that is NOT a refutation nor debunking of Griffin's work.

Here's where I stopped reading:

In his answer to the observation that "no steel framed building before nor since 9/11 has collapsed due to fire" he sites the SF bridge collapse. Give me an effin' break. Not comparable. And if you take any comfort, I FULLY support the official theory of that bridges collapse: A very hot fuel fire weakened a critical steel joint causing it to fail.

This is put up as debunking the fact that the history of steel construction is replete with examples of massive fires that did not cause BUILDING collapse?

He offers no analysis as to why the few structures that did collapse collapsed (other than that there were fires and I take him at his word).

New independent investigation is indicated.

The truth will out.

Firi And Mr McCay,

You Seem To Have Summed Up My Personal Misgivings With The Official Story... I Don't Believe WT7 Came Down Because Of Fire Alone, But I Don't Have Any Proof Of Anything Else. I Do Know Enough About Physics To Believe Something Is Wrong With The Manner In Which WT1 & 2 Came Down. Again, I Have No True Evidence Other Than The Tape That Everyone Else Has. The Other Thing That Makes Me Suspicious, Is All The WT7 "Early" Announcements. How Do You Predict That A Tower Is Falling 20 Minutes Before It Happens. I Would Like To See Those Points Cleared Up Before I Start Believing The Government Of The USA. That Said, False Flag Op Or Not, I Have No True Proof Of The Incident One Way Or Another.

Here's a viewpoint on Maher's comment:

Bill Maher: Corporate “Comic” and Shill for the Official 9/11 Fable

http://adereview.com/blog/?p=41

Funny picture inside

OK, so 9/11 is an inside job.. what now? JFK, the start of the vietnam war.. No one gets jail time ever... so move along... after all.. we are all sheep.. even those that think they aren't sheep, are really just sheep.

"I Would Like To See Those Points Cleared Up Before I Start Believing The Government Of The USA."

You shouldn't believe the U.S. government simply because those points are or will be clarified. Believe those with the soundest evidence, whoever they may be.

Right now, both sides have evidence, but all of it is incomplete. It's impossible to draw a safe conclusion and this is what has many people frustrated and still debating the issue six years later. I fear it will become another one of history's great mysteries.

I'm impressed with all of you who understand the more complex aspects of engineering and bridges and shit. Wow!

I don't see why the conspiracy theorists need to be discredited. I find it's usually better to use one's own eyes in some cases and I noticed 3 things.

1) building 7 looked like a percision drop, as if explosives were detonated at all the foundations almost simultaneously. If it suffered from fire damage it likely wouldv'e started to collapse unevenly in the area where the supports began to fail then then sort of topple as the rest of the building went with it. this is just my laymen's opinion.

2) The hole in the pentagon looked kinda small. Furthermore there was no luggage, no bodies, no seats among the visible wreckage, as one would expect from a normal airline flight crash. again laymen's opinion, not my own.

3) Massive amounts of money were moved around a day or so before the attack by anonymous investors. Investigations into who these investors were was promised but never followed up.

Conclusion: The US government cannot be held responsible by this evidence alone but we can conclude that we have been fed bullshit about what actually occured on 9/11.

I like this site very much and this is my first post and what strikes me about what I've read so far is that while this community especially the host, brilliantly challenge mainstream religious fundamentalism on the topic of alternative theories concerning 9/11 they are ignored and ridiculed. This much I do know that without 9/11 there would be no Iraq War and the insane war profiteering taking place. Whether it was gross negligence, or cover-up this government cannot and should not be taken for its word.

There are many examples where catastrophic attacks have been used to galvanize a public behind undesirable government policies and the very fact that there is still a very considerable percentage of the American public that believes in the connection between 9/11 and Iraq testifies to the insidious visionary planning demonstrated in documents like the Project for The New American Century.

I think that many people agree that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and that we as the generations that lived in this time will have to do some serious thinking about the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks, the explanations and consequences to future generations. This thread reveals the profound challenges in agreeing to the story behind the most important day in our generation.

I left last night due to the lateness of the hour and just dropped by to see how the conspiracy was shaping up. Interesting calculation Teodomiro. It does demonstrate your mastery of spreadsheets if not statics or dynamics. If it were true ,however, then the demolition teams that took down the towers would have had to place explosives throghout the building and on every floor. They would have had to know exactly where the planes would strike to avoid premature detonation. I imagine that several years of unobserved preparation would been necessary. With regard the NIST report, the pancake theory was deemed unlikely. In fact models of this unique structural event now suggest that the impact of the upper floors in free fall produced a shockwave in the underlying structure that caused systemic failure from top to bottom producing blowouts at the bottom of the structure. The hammer effect I noted before. When the upper floors hit the structure stopped being a structure and became a more or less loose aggragation of building materials. You needn't have worried about the effects of wind resistance. They were not significant.

ahahah bill maher, seriously though what exactly would the motive of the goverment be in attacking their own economic center, it just doesnt make sense. 040

Dodnt south park already handle this 9/11 stuff anyway? Im skeptical of anything the government tells us but it was a bunch of pissed of moslims. Now to argue they let it happen, that is a different story.

but a great news rules from bill.

Hello Peter G.

Interesting calculation Teodomiro. It does demonstrate your mastery of spreadsheets if not statics or dynamics.

Thank you. I think.

If it were true ,however, then the demolition teams that took down the towers would have had to place explosives throghout the building and on every floor.

Yes. But this does not constitute a refutation.

They would have had to know exactly where the planes would strike to avoid premature detonation.

Why? Because they didn’t want really big fireballs?

I imagine that several years of unobserved preparation would been necessary.

I don’t know how much prep time would be required, but as I said above, it wouldn’t have been as long as a normal controlled demolition, since they weren’t so concerned with collateral damage.

With regard the NIST report, the pancake theory was deemed unlikely. In fact models of this unique structural event now suggest that the impact of the upper floors in free fall produced a shockwave in the underlying structure that caused systemic failure from top to bottom producing blowouts at the bottom of the structure. The hammer effect I noted before.

Okay. I went to the NIST site and found this. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

From the Executive Summary:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

That last part doesn’t seem to jibe with what you’re saying. (I only included the first part so that I wouldn’t be accused of taking something out of context.)

Interestingly, from that same document:

The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:

To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.

To serve as the basis for:

-Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;

-Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;

-Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and

-Improved public safety.

It sounds like they were determined from the start to find out how buildings might be improved to survive an aircraft impact. This just sounds to me like they had already decided that was the cause.

When the upper floors hit the structure stopped being a structure and became a more or less loose aggragation of building materials. You needn't have worried about the effects of wind resistance. They were not significant.

I don’t buy the “house of cards” implication in the first part. And saying that air resistance was not significant does not make it so. And both of these assumptions must hold, according to my calculations, for the towers to have collapsed as quickly as they did, in the absence of other factors (i.e., explosives) used to aid the buildings in their voyage to the ground.

well, it would be a bit much to expect this smarmy fella to be right all the time, so i guess I'll try to find a way not to lose all respect for him. but poo-pooing all who see the very evident inconsistencies in the official version of this too-convenient-for-the-thugs event is very disrespectful, and asinine. I am quite surprised to see this usually-intellgent man on the smug dismissal side of the fence, the questions are far too numerous.

"ahahah bill maher, seriously though what exactly would the motive of the goverment be in attacking their own economic center, it just doesnt make sense. 040"

If you don't now why then you haven't really read enough, the elite had the ULTIMATE motive:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete911timeline&geopoliticsand9/11=centralAsia

user-pic

Wow, I'm obviously a little late to this party but that's probably the first time I've agreed with pretty much Maher's entire message. If only he actually meant it.

The 9/11 conspiracy wacko crap aside (please shut up about your 'alternative theories' and read the scientific facts, Popular Mechanics was kind enough to publish a whole book about it for you) ... funny nobody seems to be paying attention to his closing bit. Activism is the new narcissism. I've been saying this for ages, but I guess now that someone famous has said it, it has some weight. It's never about the cause you pretend to care about, it's about you caring about a cause. And that's why it's so ridiculous.

Keep telling me how much you hate this and hate that and how stupid and dumb and wrong you think America is - well, folks, it's on you. This is your country.

People think it's progress that so many people 'care' about causes. But it's not, because they don't really care. It's just the easiest way to look like you're involved without actually doing anything, and particularly without having to take the time to analyze and defend a position.

Blah blah blah...arrogance roaming free. They knew nothing (but I obviously do), yet a poll showed that 20-30% of Americans can't even remember which year 9/11 happened and 30% still believe Saddam was involved with 9/11, that's some powerful propagande right there. Go to 911blogger and try to measure your knowledge levels on 9/11 with those whom post there.

Bill Maher's Opinion Is Naive About 9/11 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/bill-mahers-opinion-is-nb64742.html

9/11 began with a government lie. First they told the air was safe. Then they claim that there were no pre-warnings. Then they didn't even want any examination of the events at all. Then they set up time and economic limits. And all the work was headed by Zelikow (an expert on public myths btw), who has written a book with Rice, so he's hardly an independent. So the governent has a track record of lying and it investigates it's own failures. I don't know about you but to me that simply ain't enough...

And the matter of fact is that in the end of the day for many of your dear leaders those 3000 dead served as the ultimate opportunity.

G3: “Final Velocity After Floor Impact” This is where we’ll calculate the new velocity after the mass of the floor is taken into account, and momentum is conserved. Conservation of Momentum: M1 * V1 = M2 * V2. I am assuming that all floors are the same weight.

You are also implicitly assuming that the collisions between floors are completely inelastic. At the other extreme, if you assume that the collisions between floors are perfectly elastic you will obtain a result identical to free fall for the time before the bottommost floor falls. The time for free fall (from rest) from a height of 415 m is about 9.2 s, ignoring air resistance. Reality probably lies somewhere between the two extremes of completely inelastic and perfectly elastic collisions (within the constraints of your crude model).

user-pic

Skeptics of the "Official Story" seem to fall into one of two categories:

1) The Bush administration knew of the impending attacks and purposely did nothing to prevent them; thus providing the "Pearl Harbor" like scenario needed to advance their Project for the 21st Century agenda.

Or

2) The Bush administration planned and carried out the attacks; thus providing the "Pearl Harbor" like scenario needed to advance their Project for the 21st Century agenda.

The first seems plausible and credible based on the obvious warnings abounding during the first 8 months of 2001. Particularly, the PDB entitled, "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" delivered to GW Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas in August.

The second seems totally implausible based on everything we have seen from this administration since 9/11:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, Walter Reed Hospital, NSA spying, Cheney shooting that poor old man in the face, Gonzogate . The list goes on and on.

These guys show no indication of even a fraction of the competency and ability required to pull off a successful "False Flag" attack of this magnitude.

Had they attempted to high jack four planes, flying two into the Trade Towers, one into the Pentagon and crashing one in a field in Pennsylvania, I have no doubt the results would have been -

8:46am - Flight 11 slams into Radio City Music Hall.

9:03am Flight 175 slams into The Bronx Zoo.

9:37am - Flight 77 crashes into The Smithsonian Institute.

10:06am - Flight 93 Crashes into an empty field in Montana.

All the while, Bush would have still been struggling to get through that grade school book about the goat; and somehow, it would have all been Bill Clinton's fault.

At the other extreme, if you assume that the collisions between floors are perfectly elastic you will obtain a result identical to free fall for the time before the bottommost floor falls. The time for free fall (from rest) from a height of 415 m is about 9.2 s, ignoring air resistance.

Before I waste too much time seeing if I can even model this, let’s be very clear. Are you saying that, using the same assumptions I made except changing the floor collisions to perfectly elastic, the entire collapse will be complete in 9.2 seconds? The way you worded it makes me think you know that’s not right, but you went on to leave your number at 9.2.

So tell me exactly what I need to refute here, in order to convince you.

TeaForTheTillerman:

"Please shut up"?

About what?

This: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

Scientific Facts?

What are you smoking, paxil?

How about googling "yellow journalism", and start doing some research.

Perhaps TeaforPatTillman would be a better name for you - atleast get you started ...

(then google "pat tillman executed")

Wakeie wakeie.

(Norm) Get us past the part where at a minimum dozens and more likely hundreds would have to be in on it.

(Me) One idea I've seen though is that many who were involved did not realize the scope of the plan until it was too late, at which point they really couldn't say anything.

(Norm) Why?

Fear of retribution comes to mind. Possibly also guilt.

(Norm) If you can't prove me a satisfactory argument for every detail 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy it was.

Please remember, I was not involved in either the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks, so I don’t have all the answers. Are you all are going to require proof of every detail before admitting that there might be cause for a formal investigation? I don’t have access to all the information.

Not that I think a formal investigation could possibly be apolitical. Washington these days is so partisan as to be completely useless. Nevertheless, that is the process that is needed.

Why do people cite Popular Mechanics as a credible source for 9/11 information?

The 'Senior Researcher' for the "Debunking 9/11 Myths" piece is a 25 year old named Ben Chertoff cousin of Michael Chertoff the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Small world!

Forget the obvious nepotism going on here...the 'Senior Researcher" is 25 years old!!??

To top it off the kid was hired by Hearst to write the piece. Hearst is the company which owns Popular Mechanics and is responsible for the term "Yellow Journalism". If you search that term in wikipedia you will find the full explanation of what I am talking about.

The icing on the cake is the forward written by none other than the Bush kissing (literally) Republican Senator John McCain endorsing the article.

This is the kind of 'Journalism' people are turning to for information about the facts surrounding 9/11?

I feel bad for those who hear the words Popular Mechanics and think "Reputable source of scientific information"...I truly feel bad for you because you have been duped.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives