You keep insulting and impugning, but you have made no rational argument yet.
Sigh. Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Here is my argument: The NIST report fully explains the events of the day. No other forwarded explanation does. All the crackpot ideas require Deus Ex Machina to work. That is an argument, and if you have missed it I would have to recommend a course in Reading 101.
Again, ad hominem is not debate
Pointing out that a crackpot is a crackpot is not an Ad Hominem attack. It is pure reason. I have also described why the crackpots are crackpots, in case you missed it. Look up the concept of Deus ex Machina.
That is your opinion, of course
You still seem to to think this is a matter of opinion vs opinion. And, living in the times you do, you probably feel that all opinions deserve equal investigation. You are wrong. You have given credence to crackpot theories. That is observable fact. The fact that they are crackpot theories is also observable fact. In the same way that ID and Creationism is crackpot. That is what is sad here.
I don't see a "slam-dunk" by the "scientists"
Putting scientists in quotation marks just proves that you are an ignorant idiot. On the other hand, that entire sentence shows that you are an ignorant idiot. You see, you imply that I have seen a "slam-dunk" anywhere, and I have not. I have never argued that it is a slam-dunk. Again, you are giving credence where none is required. I'll try to take it very slowly just for you.
In the 9/11 investigation we here talk about, there is one, and only one theory forwarded that explains, or tries to explain the events. There is not a set of theories we can select from.
Given that there is only one theory and that this adequately explains what happened, it seems reasonable to assume that this theory is close to the truth.
Given that in 7 years no other theory has ever been presented by anyone at any point in time further leads weight to the assumption that the NIST report is an accurate description of the events.
For reasons only severely demented people can understand seemingly rational people are listening to a bunch of lunatics who claim that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy did it.
The people who think that the SC and TF advocates have a point would like the rest of the world to take them and the SC and TF crackpots seriously.
There has been NO independent investigation, and that in itself is problematic.
Sigh. The NIST report is available to anyone who wants it. Go find fault with it and then come back. Until you do you are just a crackpot lunatic. and I am not at all unreasonable when I point this out. The fact that you don't like that I call you a crackpot lunatic and the fact that you your self feel that you are not a crackpot lunatic doesn't change the fact that you are. The only unreasonable behavior here is from the people who think that the Santa Claus theory might have merit.
In exactly the same way that both sides of the Evolution debate "make interesting points". In other words, you have rational science and a bunch of lunatic crackpots, and you give credence to the lunatic crackpots.
Your argument has been insult and absurdities
Insult, absolutely. Absurdities, not at all. Given the fact that you are actually stating that the crackpots have opinions as valid as those of scientists, you are really not worthy of anything but insult, but I have also tried to use one or two arguments.
I find it staggering that people who stand up-right actually give credit to the Intelligent Design crackpots. That is what you are doing here. There is no difference whatsoever.
Exactly. And the 9/11 "truth" people are just as ignorant, dumb and annoying as the ID proponents. This is why I have stated that some dude here who claims to be an Atheist and who gives credence to the crackpots is in fact not an atheist. Not if you take a wider view of the matter.
Of course they would, but again, you're looking at an individual floor.
OK, so, lets say that the 95th floor collapses when a fifteen story building falls on it. What happens to 94th floor when a 16 story building falls on it a fraction of a second later?
trying to extrapolate some outlandish theory that I have never offered
So, what is your alternate theory? What other options are there? I have heard two options, a demolition scenario, which requires leaps of faith far greater than those required for Santa Claus, and the NIST explanation. What would be your explanation? Invisible nasty goblins?
It sounds like you're accepting a demolition theory
You should familiarize your self with the "if... then" concept. If the nuts are right about the demolition theory then a certain set of items follows. Items such as that there must have been a demolition crew, equipment etc. In rational debate, you can show how absurd an argument is by using such "if - then" constructs. That doesn't mean that you accept the premise in the "if" clause. The fact that you apparently never have heard about this astounds me. Given the fact that you are able to operate a keyboard and that you read/. would indicate that you at least have some education. Apparently not.
I have no evidence whatsoever for demolition crews at the WTC
Good, and since this debate has long since shown that there could not have been such crews anywhere near the WTC, then we can readily, easily and without hesitation, immediately ignore the demolition theory. Why are you not?
You're under the mistaken impression here that I am offering up some alternate theory
No, I am not. I am rightfully under the impression that you think there might be an alternate explanation. Despite the fact that nobody ever has come up with such an explanation. Given the thousands upon thousands of people, some with a lot of education, are interested in the matter, and that not a single alternate explanation ever has been presented. Don't you find that just a little odd?
Evolution isn't a theory of how life came to be, it is the only theory. No other theory has been presented in a long time. Why do scientists assume Evolution is the answer to this question?
All we have is a lot of serious questions left as a result of this 'theory'
Please don't put quotes around the word theory until you know the difference between conjecture and theory. The NIST report is not a "theory", it is a theory. If you can fin a flaw in the NIST report, please come show us. Currently the only thing you have is your "feelings" about how it can not possibly be true. This despite the fact that you haven't even read it. The sad thing is that you don't even understand how insane that is.
You don't pull a theory out of thin air
I never said you did, and nobody ever did for the events of 9/11. In fact, the theory was based on solid scientific forensic work. It took years. Your "feelings" on the other hand is pulled straight out of your ass, fired up by insane preachers of "the truth". It is a religion. Not more, not less.
The theory itself has to have credible evidence as proof that it happened that way and I am afraid there is no such thing.
Then I suggest you stop emoting about this thing and show us where the NIST report is wrong. That would obviously require you read it, which I doubt you ever will since it will make your new found religion crumble. Religious nuts like you studiously avoid any knowledge that can undermine their cherished beliefs.
When you have something that actually supports what your saying as a result of that report,
Here is a simple question: What in the report is wrong, and what scientific evidence you base this on?
Why? I am not a very nice person. I don't like nice people. In short, I am a prick and I don't want or need to change. People need to stop listening to religious nutcases though.
the Pentagon is not on the Moon, and manipulating the American public into a war-for-profit doesn't hinge on the existence of Pluto
Ah, but you see, the Pentagon doesn't need to, neither could they pull off, a stunt like this. The American population would have supported an invasion of Belgium in 2003 simply because he vast majority of the American population, as with populations everywhere, are utterly retarded. Trying to do something like 9/11 has a huge risk to it, and the benefit is significantly lower.
The American population fully supported the first war in Iraq, and all that was needed was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US on TV pretending she was a nurse that had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during the Iraqi operation in Kuwait. Hook, line and sinker, and Bush Sr. was allowed to go to war. The incubator story was bullshit, but a hesitant Congress bought it and so did the American population. It took a couple of weeks for the story to get out but at that point in time nobody cared and war was given. Another invasion could easily be justified with another Cole-like incident.
The people in Pentagon are not the smartest people i the world. If they were they would have gotten jobs in the private sector (which pays a hell of a lot more to really smart people). They are public servants and they neither have the balls, the brains or the capability to pull off something on this scale.
If the results of that case are not currently shaping your life, they will be soon enough.
That event stopped shaping things some time in late 2003. The main thing currently shaping events in the US is the fact that the vast majority of the population, even a solid majority of university educated people, are more willing to believe in fairy tales and flim-flam than in logic and rational thought. That is scary. That will have a lasting impact on this society. Bush and friends are morons who will be gone soon. Some other retard will take over and bungle things slightly more or less. All the while the large, mentally handicapped, population will think things like Republican vs Democrat or Jesus vs Satan or other insignificant bullshit actually matters.
If we can reduce the percentage of severely mentally retarded people in the world slightly down, then perhaps things will get a little better. Until then we must make sure that the mindless majority does as little damage as possible.
Yes, I am an arrogant prick, probably mostly a prick. Doesn't mean that I am wrong however.
Absolutely everything. Given that you have shown here that you would rather put your faith in absurd fairy tales than in hard science, is proof positive that you are a selective atheist. Once you are able to use your skepticism on every part of your life then you are an atheist.
So, because I refuse to blindly believe one opinion over another
Not at all. This is not a matter of believing one opinion or another. Neither is atheism. It is about believing and not believing. There is absolutely no supporting evidence for any of the alternative "theories" about 9/11. Not a single shred of proof. In fact, the alternative theories are not theories at all but conjectures at best. This means that there is currently a single theory that explains what happened. Not one, two or three. One. You can either realize this or you can believe in fairytale hokum. You have chosen to lean towards the fairy tale in this case.
ask yourself who needs to use their logic functions of their brain more?
You do. Try to find the source of the following important concept: "That's not right. It's not even wrong". The alternative explanations for 9/11 are "not even wrong".
I'm quite skeptical of the whole thing
Actually, no, you are not. Again, try to find out what the meaning of being a skeptic actually is. You are latching on to absurd fairy tales because you don't like "the official" explanation. This in spite of the fact that the "official" explanation is so far the only rational explanation. This is what makes you a believer in flim-flam fairy tales. That is what makes you a non-atheist (sorta, kinda, in a way).
I'm probably older than you, and from this exchange, I'd bet a lot smarter as well.
Probably not on the first one, and I guarantee you are wrong on the second one. You have proven through this discussion that you don't even understand very basic scientific concepts and elementary reasoning.
Actually, no, you are not. You are what I would call a selective atheist. You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life. You are what I would call a wanna-be atheist. Someone who would like to be an atheist but who is unable to let go of some of the fairytale stories.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
The "official" explanation for the collapse is doubtful, simply because the collapse took place too fast, according to the laws of gravity and inertia.
Good. So not only does the Bush administration have access to invisible demolition crews who have access to silent Thermite and invisible thermite detonation cables. The Bush administration also has access to extra-gravitational devices that makes things fall faster than they possibly could under the laws of gravity and inertia.
Are you not self-aware enough to understand how insane you sound?
Any demolition crew would have the exact same problem. There is no way they could make the building fall as fast as you crackpots claim it fell. There is no feasible way of doing this short of completely de-atomizing the entire building below 95th floor. All of the material would have to vanish instantly, but it would have to leave an image of it self as it pretended to collapse.
What is more likely? The Bush administration has access to de-Atomizers that leave a video of the building in 3D for all to watch as they totally remove every atom below 95th floor or that the crackpot theory about the time of the building collapse is just that. Pure, utter, insane crackpot.
there are some odd things about the World Trade Center collapse that have not been explained.
And that is precisely why you religious nutcases still make noise in a world that ought to be sane by now. For fucks sake we had the enlightenment a long time ago. God is a fiction. Get over it.
The fact that there are things we don't fully understand with the universe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Neither does it mean that it was created by some bearded moron who wants his creation to worship his dumb ass. The fact that you don't understand everything about the WTC collapse and that perhaps even the NIST engineers are not 100% sure why some of the things happened, it still happened. Every other explanation for the WTC collapse is significantly more insane than the "official" version. Believing something that is obviously insane over something that has observed data supporting it is absurd.
Please read up on concepts like "The God of Gaps" etc. Your crackpot insistence that there had to be "something else" is exactly that. No difference between you and the ID and Creationist nuts.
I don't know. You tell me. I'm not claiming that the WTC buildings were demolished because I have no evidence for that. I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
Until an alternative theory comes along, there is only one, and there is no credible refutation of this theory. Hence, according to standard scientific practice, it is the assumed truth.
I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
And you haven't even been interested enough to actually read the NIST report. You are just sad.
A building is 'pulled' down piece by piece when it is not feasible to get it down by any other safe means. A building like a tall office block is demolished, sometimes via explosives, by collapsing the floors in advance ahead of the advancing collapse itself, ensuring the collapse continues, ensuring little debris is spread outwards and a pancaking effect is minimised and ensuring the destruction of the building from the top to the ground floor.
Interesting. And this is what happened at the WTC? So not only does the government have invisible demolition crews and invisible thermite ignition cables (no, can't be done over radio) but they also are able to selectively weaken the building infrastructure days and weeks in advance in a building where thousands of people are working, and they are able to do so without anyone noticing.
Perhaps our school system failed you completely when they didn't lock you up in a mental institution before the age of 12.
No, because it's not each individual floor you stupid twit, and that's where the flaw in your thinking remains. You're looking at this from the POV of each floor at a time. That's fucking stupid. It's all the floors underneath which are absorbing that force collectively
Really? So the walls of the 95th floor would not have had any problem with a building 15 stories tall falling on them? Interesting. The central core is also not one uniform item stretching from the ground to the 110th floor. Do you think the individual items of that column was designed to have a 15 story building dropped on them? The floors didn't collapse simultaneously, the collapsed one by one.
I'm aghast at what an educational system can produce.
Yeah, me too. I am aghast that someone like you, quite apparently able to read and write, but who still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and government special task force demolition crews with Invisibility Cloaks.
Airplane parts I can understand since I think an airplane of some kind struck the building. But the weird thing is that I've never seen any evidence of passenger's bodies at the Pentagon
I have never seen Neil Armstrong, neither have I seen Pluto. Doubting that Pluto exists and that Armstrong walked the moon is somewhat retarded though. The cool thing about living in the US is that things like trial evidence is public.
Try this for wreckage, and this for something a lot more gruesome. Please beware, these pictures are not for the faint of heart.
I know there is a level of respect which fire fighters show for the dead, but it still seems curious that we should have heard nothing at all.
Hearing requires listening. Given the enormous amount of noise in our current information society, it also means filtering. Your problem is that your filters are failing and you are listening to what is just random bullshit noise and you think it is communication.
Now, to be fair, I've not spent as much time focusing on the question of bodies as perhaps you have
I haven't been "focused" on this at all. The case as such doesn't interest me all that much. It took me all of 1 minute to find the Moussaui images last night however.
Oh, and you might think that I am posting a lot for someone who doesn't find 9/11 all that interesting, but please note that I am not posting about 9/11, I am posting about the fact that the general retardedness in the population is now at a level where we can elect G. W. Bush for president twice and people would rather believe harebrained conspiracy theories than good scientific evidence. That worries me a hell of a lot more than some insane towelheaded morons in a cave in Afghanistan.
So, what do you think is more likely, some structural aspect of WTC7 made it collapse (you can read the NIST report for details) or that the government has access to invisible demolition crews, silent pneumatic drills, invisible thermite wiring, quiet thermite and Neuralizers?
You see, without the above implements, there is no possible way the government could have pulled this off. So... please, tell me... just pick one of them... where did G. W. Bush and friends find their invisible demolition crews?
No, because what you're doing here is that you're assuming that the collapse will continue unabated. It won't. The collapse dramatically loses force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back
That is not necessarily true. Now, compared to the weight and the inertia of the concrete slabs that is the floor, the debris "between" the slabs is irrelevant, even compacted. In other words, given the total weight og the floors above, each individual floor (the 10 fee4t of mostly air) will be crushed. Now, if that was the only thing, you'd have 110 huge slabs of concrete more or less on top of each other (a stack of pancakes if you will). Problem is, there is more. Below the building it self there is a huge hole in the ground called a "subway". The building collapse makes this cavity cave in.
You're assuming that one object can crash into another and experience no loss of energy
No, I am not. I am assuming that the upward force from the steel beams between the concrete slabs is not strong enough to withstand the weight of an increasing number of slabs falling onto them.
immoveable
I am constantly amused that when people want to defend their religious beliefs they invent mythical properties of things to support their superstition.
The funny thing here is that you are asserting that a building like this can't be brought down at all. Not by accident and certainly not by a demolition crew. According to you any demolition crew that wants to pull down a tall building will run into the following problem "[t]he collapse [will] dramatically [lose] force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back". So, how do you explain that demolition crews are able to pull down buildings?
Yeah, right. And the "molten steel" absurdity too. You really need to gauge your eyes out so you stop reading retarded shit like that, it rots your brain.
For a pancake collapse to occur, ALL vertical support structures have to be disabled or removed to allow a floor to fall straight down.
No.
I assert that buildings are designed to be survivable and not to suffer complete destruction from fire as is claimed in the official accounts, and you respond by calling someone retarded.
No, I claim you are retarded because you are unwilling to acquire information that is counter to your insane beliefs. It is also good to see that you confirm this in the above sentence.
you do seem to feel it's important to insult people a lot
No, it is not important to insult people a lot. Not if, by "people" you mean "primates with a functioning brain". I rarely, if ever, insult people.
Why is it that in spite of the design, this has NEVER happened before or since?
Because no skyscraper, before or since, has been subject to an accident where the entire support infrastructure failed. The WTC was unique.
HAVE INDEED queried these licensed professionals with literally decades of individual experience (hundreds of years if you count them collectively) on what they think of the official accounts and they all agree that they are extremely dubious to put it mildly.
Yeah, sure, we believe you. You having "talked to" some people is far more valid than hundreds of scientists doing forensic research and actually working on the problem. Besides, when janitors like you ask architects and engineers stupid questions like "it would be impossible right?" they tend to ignore you with a "yeah, sure, it would be impossible".
And to clarify my point about why it is so hard to believe that fire took these buildings down,
Go read the NIST report.
WTC7 was most certainly "pulled" intentionally
No, it wasn't, and the assertion is absurd. Since when did fire crews have demolition capabilities of this kind?
have to wonder since when has the owner of a building has ever had the authority to order the withdrawal of firefighters from a building under their jurisdiction?
The owner of the building never had such authority, however, in a conversation with a fire chief he is allowed to have an opinion.
There were unexplained puddles of molten steel on the site
There wasn't any
That the perfect pancake collapse was something other than an accident.
It was no accident. Big buildings are designed to undergo pancake collapse in case of total structural failure. In other words, they are designed not to fall down, but in the unlikely event that they do fall down, they are to undergo a pancake collapse. The WTC did what it was designed to do, and it did so partly because of the architect, but mostly because of gravity.
4. The Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77. There was an appropriate time window and radar drop-out during which Flight 77 could have landed at the military airbase within its range and another craft brought into play.
Then I have a simple question for you. The entire inside of the Pentagon was littered with airplane debris, including burned and charred bodies strapped in airplane seats. Where did that come from? Did the get people out of jail, strap them into airplane seats, shoot them and set fire to them to "simulate" an airplane crash into the Pentagon?
Buildings are NOT designed to suffer complete destruction after an accident.
Now we know you are retarded. Please stop posting until you have learned how to read. I never said they were designed to suffer complete destruction, I said that they were designed such that in case of complete destruction, it would be a pancake collapse.
Please go find some references on the assertion that buildings are designed to fail like this under ALL assertions.
Please go and find a place where I said so. Then go and find a course on reading 101.
I wouldn't begin to know or imagine what really happened
Once you have finished Reading 101, try the NIST report. It is quite enlightening.
I actually work with architects and engineers every day
The fact that you clean toilets at an architects office doesn't mean you are an expert on architecture. Also, given the fact that you clearly can not read, you never will be.
I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that a building catching fire could lead to a complete collapse by design.
And I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that someone who can't actually read is still so eager to post drivel in a public forum.
Slashdot Mirror
My, my, my. How you do hate real physical scientific evidence.
Honestly, when using difficult words like "evidence", you should try to find out what they mean first.
You keep insulting and impugning, but you have made no rational argument yet.
Sigh. Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Here is my argument: The NIST report fully explains the events of the day. No other forwarded explanation does. All the crackpot ideas require Deus Ex Machina to work. That is an argument, and if you have missed it I would have to recommend a course in Reading 101.
Again, ad hominem is not debate
Pointing out that a crackpot is a crackpot is not an Ad Hominem attack. It is pure reason. I have also described why the crackpots are crackpots, in case you missed it. Look up the concept of Deus ex Machina.
That is your opinion, of course
You still seem to to think this is a matter of opinion vs opinion. And, living in the times you do, you probably feel that all opinions deserve equal investigation. You are wrong. You have given credence to crackpot theories. That is observable fact. The fact that they are crackpot theories is also observable fact. In the same way that ID and Creationism is crackpot. That is what is sad here.
I don't see a "slam-dunk" by the "scientists"
Putting scientists in quotation marks just proves that you are an ignorant idiot. On the other hand, that entire sentence shows that you are an ignorant idiot. You see, you imply that I have seen a "slam-dunk" anywhere, and I have not. I have never argued that it is a slam-dunk. Again, you are giving credence where none is required. I'll try to take it very slowly just for you.
There has been NO independent investigation, and that in itself is problematic.
Sigh. The NIST report is available to anyone who wants it. Go find fault with it and then come back. Until you do you are just a crackpot lunatic. and I am not at all unreasonable when I point this out. The fact that you don't like that I call you a crackpot lunatic and the fact that you your self feel that you are not a crackpot lunatic doesn't change the fact that you are. The only unreasonable behavior here is from the people who think that the Santa Claus theory might have merit.
Both sides make interesting points
In exactly the same way that both sides of the Evolution debate "make interesting points". In other words, you have rational science and a bunch of lunatic crackpots, and you give credence to the lunatic crackpots.
Your argument has been insult and absurdities
Insult, absolutely. Absurdities, not at all. Given the fact that you are actually stating that the crackpots have opinions as valid as those of scientists, you are really not worthy of anything but insult, but I have also tried to use one or two arguments.
I find it staggering that people who stand up-right actually give credit to the Intelligent Design crackpots. That is what you are doing here. There is no difference whatsoever.
Exactly. And the 9/11 "truth" people are just as ignorant, dumb and annoying as the ID proponents. This is why I have stated that some dude here who claims to be an Atheist and who gives credence to the crackpots is in fact not an atheist. Not if you take a wider view of the matter.
Of course they would, but again, you're looking at an individual floor.
OK, so, lets say that the 95th floor collapses when a fifteen story building falls on it. What happens to 94th floor when a 16 story building falls on it a fraction of a second later?
trying to extrapolate some outlandish theory that I have never offered
So, what is your alternate theory? What other options are there? I have heard two options, a demolition scenario, which requires leaps of faith far greater than those required for Santa Claus, and the NIST explanation. What would be your explanation? Invisible nasty goblins?
It sounds like you're accepting a demolition theory
You should familiarize your self with the "if ... then" concept. If the nuts are right about the demolition theory then a certain set of items follows. Items such as that there must have been a demolition crew, equipment etc. In rational debate, you can show how absurd an argument is by using such "if - then" constructs. That doesn't mean that you accept the premise in the "if" clause. The fact that you apparently never have heard about this astounds me. Given the fact that you are able to operate a keyboard and that you read /. would indicate that you at least have some education. Apparently not.
I have no evidence whatsoever for demolition crews at the WTC
Good, and since this debate has long since shown that there could not have been such crews anywhere near the WTC, then we can readily, easily and without hesitation, immediately ignore the demolition theory. Why are you not?
You're under the mistaken impression here that I am offering up some alternate theory
No, I am not. I am rightfully under the impression that you think there might be an alternate explanation. Despite the fact that nobody ever has come up with such an explanation. Given the thousands upon thousands of people, some with a lot of education, are interested in the matter, and that not a single alternate explanation ever has been presented. Don't you find that just a little odd?
Evolution isn't a theory of how life came to be, it is the only theory. No other theory has been presented in a long time. Why do scientists assume Evolution is the answer to this question?
All we have is a lot of serious questions left as a result of this 'theory'
Please don't put quotes around the word theory until you know the difference between conjecture and theory. The NIST report is not a "theory", it is a theory. If you can fin a flaw in the NIST report, please come show us. Currently the only thing you have is your "feelings" about how it can not possibly be true. This despite the fact that you haven't even read it. The sad thing is that you don't even understand how insane that is.
You don't pull a theory out of thin air
I never said you did, and nobody ever did for the events of 9/11. In fact, the theory was based on solid scientific forensic work. It took years. Your "feelings" on the other hand is pulled straight out of your ass, fired up by insane preachers of "the truth". It is a religion. Not more, not less.
The theory itself has to have credible evidence as proof that it happened that way and I am afraid there is no such thing.
Then I suggest you stop emoting about this thing and show us where the NIST report is wrong. That would obviously require you read it, which I doubt you ever will since it will make your new found religion crumble. Religious nuts like you studiously avoid any knowledge that can undermine their cherished beliefs.
When you have something that actually supports what your saying as a result of that report,
Here is a simple question: What in the report is wrong, and what scientific evidence you base this on?
you would benefit from adjusting your attitude.
Why? I am not a very nice person. I don't like nice people. In short, I am a prick and I don't want or need to change. People need to stop listening to religious nutcases though.
the Pentagon is not on the Moon, and manipulating the American public into a war-for-profit doesn't hinge on the existence of Pluto
Ah, but you see, the Pentagon doesn't need to, neither could they pull off, a stunt like this. The American population would have supported an invasion of Belgium in 2003 simply because he vast majority of the American population, as with populations everywhere, are utterly retarded. Trying to do something like 9/11 has a huge risk to it, and the benefit is significantly lower.
The American population fully supported the first war in Iraq, and all that was needed was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US on TV pretending she was a nurse that had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during the Iraqi operation in Kuwait. Hook, line and sinker, and Bush Sr. was allowed to go to war. The incubator story was bullshit, but a hesitant Congress bought it and so did the American population. It took a couple of weeks for the story to get out but at that point in time nobody cared and war was given. Another invasion could easily be justified with another Cole-like incident.
The people in Pentagon are not the smartest people i the world. If they were they would have gotten jobs in the private sector (which pays a hell of a lot more to really smart people). They are public servants and they neither have the balls, the brains or the capability to pull off something on this scale.
If the results of that case are not currently shaping your life, they will be soon enough.
That event stopped shaping things some time in late 2003. The main thing currently shaping events in the US is the fact that the vast majority of the population, even a solid majority of university educated people, are more willing to believe in fairy tales and flim-flam than in logic and rational thought. That is scary. That will have a lasting impact on this society. Bush and friends are morons who will be gone soon. Some other retard will take over and bungle things slightly more or less. All the while the large, mentally handicapped, population will think things like Republican vs Democrat or Jesus vs Satan or other insignificant bullshit actually matters.
If we can reduce the percentage of severely mentally retarded people in the world slightly down, then perhaps things will get a little better. Until then we must make sure that the mindless majority does as little damage as possible.
Yes, I am an arrogant prick, probably mostly a prick. Doesn't mean that I am wrong however.
LOL, what do you know about anything?
Absolutely everything. Given that you have shown here that you would rather put your faith in absurd fairy tales than in hard science, is proof positive that you are a selective atheist. Once you are able to use your skepticism on every part of your life then you are an atheist.
So, because I refuse to blindly believe one opinion over another
Not at all. This is not a matter of believing one opinion or another. Neither is atheism. It is about believing and not believing. There is absolutely no supporting evidence for any of the alternative "theories" about 9/11. Not a single shred of proof. In fact, the alternative theories are not theories at all but conjectures at best. This means that there is currently a single theory that explains what happened. Not one, two or three. One. You can either realize this or you can believe in fairytale hokum. You have chosen to lean towards the fairy tale in this case.
ask yourself who needs to use their logic functions of their brain more?
You do. Try to find the source of the following important concept: "That's not right. It's not even wrong". The alternative explanations for 9/11 are "not even wrong".
I'm quite skeptical of the whole thing
Actually, no, you are not. Again, try to find out what the meaning of being a skeptic actually is. You are latching on to absurd fairy tales because you don't like "the official" explanation. This in spite of the fact that the "official" explanation is so far the only rational explanation. This is what makes you a believer in flim-flam fairy tales. That is what makes you a non-atheist (sorta, kinda, in a way).
I'm probably older than you, and from this exchange, I'd bet a lot smarter as well.
Probably not on the first one, and I guarantee you are wrong on the second one. You have proven through this discussion that you don't even understand very basic scientific concepts and elementary reasoning.
I'm an atheist.
Actually, no, you are not. You are what I would call a selective atheist. You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life. You are what I would call a wanna-be atheist. Someone who would like to be an atheist but who is unable to let go of some of the fairytale stories.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
The "official" explanation for the collapse is doubtful, simply because the collapse took place too fast, according to the laws of gravity and inertia.
Good. So not only does the Bush administration have access to invisible demolition crews who have access to silent Thermite and invisible thermite detonation cables. The Bush administration also has access to extra-gravitational devices that makes things fall faster than they possibly could under the laws of gravity and inertia.
Are you not self-aware enough to understand how insane you sound?
Any demolition crew would have the exact same problem. There is no way they could make the building fall as fast as you crackpots claim it fell. There is no feasible way of doing this short of completely de-atomizing the entire building below 95th floor. All of the material would have to vanish instantly, but it would have to leave an image of it self as it pretended to collapse.
What is more likely? The Bush administration has access to de-Atomizers that leave a video of the building in 3D for all to watch as they totally remove every atom below 95th floor or that the crackpot theory about the time of the building collapse is just that. Pure, utter, insane crackpot.
there are some odd things about the World Trade Center collapse that have not been explained.
And that is precisely why you religious nutcases still make noise in a world that ought to be sane by now. For fucks sake we had the enlightenment a long time ago. God is a fiction. Get over it.
The fact that there are things we don't fully understand with the universe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Neither does it mean that it was created by some bearded moron who wants his creation to worship his dumb ass. The fact that you don't understand everything about the WTC collapse and that perhaps even the NIST engineers are not 100% sure why some of the things happened, it still happened. Every other explanation for the WTC collapse is significantly more insane than the "official" version. Believing something that is obviously insane over something that has observed data supporting it is absurd.
Please read up on concepts like "The God of Gaps" etc. Your crackpot insistence that there had to be "something else" is exactly that. No difference between you and the ID and Creationist nuts.
I don't know. You tell me. I'm not claiming that the WTC buildings were demolished because I have no evidence for that. I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
Until an alternative theory comes along, there is only one, and there is no credible refutation of this theory. Hence, according to standard scientific practice, it is the assumed truth.
I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
And you haven't even been interested enough to actually read the NIST report. You are just sad.
A building is 'pulled' down piece by piece when it is not feasible to get it down by any other safe means. A building like a tall office block is demolished, sometimes via explosives, by collapsing the floors in advance ahead of the advancing collapse itself, ensuring the collapse continues, ensuring little debris is spread outwards and a pancaking effect is minimised and ensuring the destruction of the building from the top to the ground floor.
Interesting. And this is what happened at the WTC? So not only does the government have invisible demolition crews and invisible thermite ignition cables (no, can't be done over radio) but they also are able to selectively weaken the building infrastructure days and weeks in advance in a building where thousands of people are working, and they are able to do so without anyone noticing.
Perhaps our school system failed you completely when they didn't lock you up in a mental institution before the age of 12.
No, because it's not each individual floor you stupid twit, and that's where the flaw in your thinking remains. You're looking at this from the POV of each floor at a time. That's fucking stupid. It's all the floors underneath which are absorbing that force collectively
Really? So the walls of the 95th floor would not have had any problem with a building 15 stories tall falling on them? Interesting. The central core is also not one uniform item stretching from the ground to the 110th floor. Do you think the individual items of that column was designed to have a 15 story building dropped on them? The floors didn't collapse simultaneously, the collapsed one by one.
I'm aghast at what an educational system can produce.
Yeah, me too. I am aghast that someone like you, quite apparently able to read and write, but who still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and government special task force demolition crews with Invisibility Cloaks.
Airplane parts I can understand since I think an airplane of some kind struck the building. But the weird thing is that I've never seen any evidence of passenger's bodies at the Pentagon
I have never seen Neil Armstrong, neither have I seen Pluto. Doubting that Pluto exists and that Armstrong walked the moon is somewhat retarded though. The cool thing about living in the US is that things like trial evidence is public.
Try this for wreckage, and this for something a lot more gruesome. Please beware, these pictures are not for the faint of heart.
I know there is a level of respect which fire fighters show for the dead, but it still seems curious that we should have heard nothing at all.
Hearing requires listening. Given the enormous amount of noise in our current information society, it also means filtering. Your problem is that your filters are failing and you are listening to what is just random bullshit noise and you think it is communication.
Now, to be fair, I've not spent as much time focusing on the question of bodies as perhaps you have
I haven't been "focused" on this at all. The case as such doesn't interest me all that much. It took me all of 1 minute to find the Moussaui images last night however.
Oh, and you might think that I am posting a lot for someone who doesn't find 9/11 all that interesting, but please note that I am not posting about 9/11, I am posting about the fact that the general retardedness in the population is now at a level where we can elect G. W. Bush for president twice and people would rather believe harebrained conspiracy theories than good scientific evidence. That worries me a hell of a lot more than some insane towelheaded morons in a cave in Afghanistan.
So, what do you think is more likely, some structural aspect of WTC7 made it collapse (you can read the NIST report for details) or that the government has access to invisible demolition crews, silent pneumatic drills, invisible thermite wiring, quiet thermite and Neuralizers?
You see, without the above implements, there is no possible way the government could have pulled this off. So... please, tell me... just pick one of them... where did G. W. Bush and friends find their invisible demolition crews?
But isn't it odd that WTC7 came down from minor fires
It didn't. It came down after a severe fire that raged un-fought for more than seven hours.
No, because what you're doing here is that you're assuming that the collapse will continue unabated. It won't. The collapse dramatically loses force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back
That is not necessarily true. Now, compared to the weight and the inertia of the concrete slabs that is the floor, the debris "between" the slabs is irrelevant, even compacted. In other words, given the total weight og the floors above, each individual floor (the 10 fee4t of mostly air) will be crushed. Now, if that was the only thing, you'd have 110 huge slabs of concrete more or less on top of each other (a stack of pancakes if you will). Problem is, there is more. Below the building it self there is a huge hole in the ground called a "subway". The building collapse makes this cavity cave in.
You're assuming that one object can crash into another and experience no loss of energy
No, I am not. I am assuming that the upward force from the steel beams between the concrete slabs is not strong enough to withstand the weight of an increasing number of slabs falling onto them.
immoveable
I am constantly amused that when people want to defend their religious beliefs they invent mythical properties of things to support their superstition.
The funny thing here is that you are asserting that a building like this can't be brought down at all. Not by accident and certainly not by a demolition crew. According to you any demolition crew that wants to pull down a tall building will run into the following problem "[t]he collapse [will] dramatically [lose] force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back". So, how do you explain that demolition crews are able to pull down buildings?
My bad. Replace "space ships" with "alien space ships".
Yeah, right. And the "molten steel" absurdity too. You really need to gauge your eyes out so you stop reading retarded shit like that, it rots your brain.
References? Links?
Read the NIST report.
For a pancake collapse to occur, ALL vertical support structures have to be disabled or removed to allow a floor to fall straight down.
No.
I assert that buildings are designed to be survivable and not to suffer complete destruction from fire as is claimed in the official accounts, and you respond by calling someone retarded.
No, I claim you are retarded because you are unwilling to acquire information that is counter to your insane beliefs. It is also good to see that you confirm this in the above sentence.
you do seem to feel it's important to insult people a lot
No, it is not important to insult people a lot. Not if, by "people" you mean "primates with a functioning brain". I rarely, if ever, insult people.
Why is it that in spite of the design, this has NEVER happened before or since?
Because no skyscraper, before or since, has been subject to an accident where the entire support infrastructure failed. The WTC was unique.
HAVE INDEED queried these licensed professionals with literally decades of individual experience (hundreds of years if you count them collectively) on what they think of the official accounts and they all agree that they are extremely dubious to put it mildly.
Yeah, sure, we believe you. You having "talked to" some people is far more valid than hundreds of scientists doing forensic research and actually working on the problem. Besides, when janitors like you ask architects and engineers stupid questions like "it would be impossible right?" they tend to ignore you with a "yeah, sure, it would be impossible".
And to clarify my point about why it is so hard to believe that fire took these buildings down,
Go read the NIST report.
WTC7 was most certainly "pulled" intentionally
No, it wasn't, and the assertion is absurd. Since when did fire crews have demolition capabilities of this kind?
have to wonder since when has the owner of a building has ever had the authority to order the withdrawal of firefighters from a building under their jurisdiction?
The owner of the building never had such authority, however, in a conversation with a fire chief he is allowed to have an opinion.
There were unexplained puddles of molten steel on the site
There wasn't any
That the perfect pancake collapse was something other than an accident.
It was no accident. Big buildings are designed to undergo pancake collapse in case of total structural failure. In other words, they are designed not to fall down, but in the unlikely event that they do fall down, they are to undergo a pancake collapse. The WTC did what it was designed to do, and it did so partly because of the architect, but mostly because of gravity.
4. The Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77. There was an appropriate time window and radar drop-out during which Flight 77 could have landed at the military airbase within its range and another craft brought into play.
Then I have a simple question for you. The entire inside of the Pentagon was littered with airplane debris, including burned and charred bodies strapped in airplane seats. Where did that come from? Did the get people out of jail, strap them into airplane seats, shoot them and set fire to them to "simulate" an airplane crash into the Pentagon?
Buildings are NOT designed to suffer complete destruction after an accident.
Now we know you are retarded. Please stop posting until you have learned how to read. I never said they were designed to suffer complete destruction, I said that they were designed such that in case of complete destruction, it would be a pancake collapse.
Please go find some references on the assertion that buildings are designed to fail like this under ALL assertions.
Please go and find a place where I said so. Then go and find a course on reading 101.
I wouldn't begin to know or imagine what really happened
Once you have finished Reading 101, try the NIST report. It is quite enlightening.
I actually work with architects and engineers every day
The fact that you clean toilets at an architects office doesn't mean you are an expert on architecture. Also, given the fact that you clearly can not read, you never will be.
I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that a building catching fire could lead to a complete collapse by design.
And I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that someone who can't actually read is still so eager to post drivel in a public forum.