9/11 inside job?

[MooNiNite]

2,200 architects and engineers from 300 countries around the world agree.

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think?

[thelerner]

drivel.  insulting drivel on a few levels.  that's what I think. 

I've discussed it other places,  you could look up old threads but I'm not interested in rehashing it here again. 

Sorry

 

fine got that out of my system.   Before getting into minutiae lets look at it from Occam's Razor.  How under one very well researched thinking the plan would costs a $100,000 to $200,000 and is set in motion using 16 people.  Versus the conspiracy plan that involves 100's of often very specialized people using millions of ordinance, who'll have to be killed by 100 people, and those people will have to killed by dozens of others.  Risking everything dozens if not 100's of times with the final outcome being incredibly stupid, ie   after all the chances and risks you have a dozen Saudi's blowing American buildings to pin it on Hussein who is in no way implicated. 

 

Jeez, just have a terrorist (or 3) with large back pack enter Building 7, say This is For Saddam on camera or drive the Saddam Mobile into it and blow it up.  Simple, versus under one recreation of the conspiracy theory that blew up the Pentagon, you needed 100's of people, ungodly complexity in timing and highly specialized expertise. 

 

There are by one estimate 1.7 to 1.8 architects and engineers in this country, so you're a fraction of 1%

 

 

Showing its drivel gets technical.  How far do conspiracy theorists go?   Do they think the original bombing was also a conspiracy?   Do they think the planes weren't hijacked?  That the towers weren't hit by planes?  That the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane.  Arguing with them tends to be a waste of time (and I suppose the other side feels the same way).

 

There are couple quicker sites to depending on what level debunking your interested in.  Like http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_theory_vs_the_facts.html a faster read.  Or http://annarborscienceskeptic.com/2011/conspiracy-theory/counter-arguments-to-architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth-part-1-wtc-twin-towers/ a more technical read. 

 

There's always the long well done article in Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a2043/4220721/ for those who don't like to read- here's a more holistic view https://youtu.be/GdbeCEFwDTA

Edited September 4, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

There is video footage-which was unavailable at the time-which shows the severe damage done to building 7 from the impact of the plane that had showered debris and fuel onto the building. It's clearly a raging inferno inside a very badly damaged building.

 

I would ask the same questions as NIST: surely someone would have noticed a team of engineers laying cutting charges. It's not simply a matter of the charges either, it's the wiring and packing needed to ensure the columns go out accurately without causing excess damage to other columns. I've watched engineers doing this to a building and it really isn't a couple of days kind of job.

 

The alternative would be a fuel air bomb or something similar which would reach that temperature-and realistically a 300mph 500 ton aircraft loaded with thousands of gallons of Avgas would do a pretty good imitation of just that kind of explosion. The volume of air to liquid would have been just about perfect. The sides of the twin towers have gone completely where the aircraft impacted. There is no metal structure at all for several floors. The shock of the impact was never foreseen by architects and the most they thought possible was a 150mph wind gust. I also read that due to age, the fire proofing on the beams had fallen off so there would have been little to no protection.

 

We unfortunately now have an examples of what is left of a jet airliner when it collides with a mountain. It's just tiny pieces. This was a big chunk of fragmenting aluminium and subject to intense heat and in tiny fragments it would have likely added to the burn. Then there are the office furniture, paper, plastics, wall coverings and higher wind forces feeding the flames.

 

I think it's more likely that the government is covering incompetence and some connections with Saudi Arabia that they would prefer stayed hidden. A government and all its resources failed to prevent a plot developing that should have been easy to spot. In fact it was reported many times, they knew the men. It was easier to push the people to into accepting greater security then directing a war against the Middle East. Much better than millions of people wondering why the hell the state had failed to protect them.

 

The implication here is that the state was involved in a plot, but I think that's missing the real plot, that they got away with failure and incompetence by directing the publics anger towards Iraq.

 

I noted today that George Osbourne-our chancellor-blames ISIS for the death of the little boy washed up on the beach. Yet it was the coalition of UK/EU/US forces that created the monster, they even trained and armed them. Governments will deflect blame wherever and whenever they can to cover just how bad they really are at doing all the things they promise to do very well.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Karl

[MooNiNite]

This seems to be a discussion between two experts of either side of the argument. 

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by MooNiNite

[Ell]

Personally, I'd refer you to the South Park episode entitled, "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce."

[Karl]

This guys rhetoric is very dodgy.

 

He starts with trying to force the listener to ask 'why' ? It is the 'begging the question' fallacy. NISE correctly began with when, what where to establish premise there was no need to ask why ? Only how.

 

Next he makes claims stemming from the 'appeal to authority' by using 2.5K of engineers and architects. It's deliberately vague we don't know what claim these people have to specialisation in a subject. They might all be home designers and car mechanics and as such would have no expert knowledge what so ever. Even an architect and engineer of high rise buildings has little knowledge of the effect of ramming a fully field passenger jet into his design. It's not the kind of thing that is easy to simulate.

 

Of course now he is on mainstream TV peddling his books. Conspiracy sells. It is interesting that it is coming up to election time and could be useful to damage one party over another. I don't know if c span is biased ?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Karl

[Perceiver]

Some people just see conspiracies everywhere.

 

You can transcend that by using rational-analytical thinking, as in thelerner's post above. You could also ask yourself if you really believe leaders in charge to be willing to murder 3000 of their own innocent people? I dont buy it.

[MooNiNite]

[Karl]

There is sufficient here to show the damage was catastrophic:

 

 

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

 

the suggestion that it was transformers and oil tanks in the area which sustained the damage that exploded. It is very conceivable that the fireman and Police had been told there was a likelihood of the transformers popping as 'blowing up'.

 

The final 'proof' that conspiracy theorists bring out is the early announcement that WTC7 had fallen. Is it not entirely conceivable thatthey were getting confused reports in the heat of the moment. Jets flying into buildings, towers collapsing, fires rubble, total confusion and WTC7 was badly damaged and burning just as the two towers had been. The anchor gets the best information they have at the time. Maybe they were told it had fallen, or was about to. There are pictures showing it hasn't yet fallen, but that's in hindsight. I challenge anyone to have correctly identified which building was actually WTC 7 at that time.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Karl