9-11 and conspiracy theories

[Rize]

STOP

Before this gets out of hand: can we please focus purely on the physics and forget who might have done what and why? I'm only concerned with the physics of whether or not the demolition model is plausible. Anything else is going to turn into a shouting match. Please provide sources for anything you paste and keep the subject on the scientific analysis.

[original post below]

Barking liberal moonbat?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

...or respected physicist?

I'm still trying to figure this one out. Help would be appreciated.

In short, I'm finding myself convinced that it is significantly plausible that whatever the government told us is not likely to be true and was deliberately designed to hide the truth. I intend to do further research into the counter arguments.

For the moment, I was wondering who, if anyone, here has already gone down this road with skepticism and where has it taken you.

Off hand this guy doesn't seem like a nutter to me.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

He brings up points that could be discussed. I know nothing about physics, so... I really don't know what to make out of it.

 

[variant]

Barking liberal moonbat?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

...or respected physicist?

I'm still trying to figure this one out. Help would be appreciated.

In short, I'm finding myself convinced that it is significantly plausible that whatever the government told us is not likely to be true and was deliberately designed to hide the truth. I intend to do further research into the counter arguments.

For the moment, I was wondering who, if anyone, here has already gone down this road with skepticism and where has it taken you.

Off hand this guy doesn't seem like a nutter to me.

Well there are a great many people who consider 9-11 to be a scham, honestly I think it is a psychological phenomina myself, but there are thousands of webcites devoted to this topic.

I suggest you read the popular mechanics article, which preports to debunk these claims, and the articles proported to debunk it, and see how you feel after that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

 

[Rize]

Yes, that popular mechanics article was mentioned in the link I provided. The author provided three links to counter-arguments.

I also have the same problem that my knowledge of physics doesn't go far beyond common sense. So my ability to scientifically evaluate the arguments is limited. I'm at the mercy of the physicists.

 

[variant]

Yes, that popular mechanics article was mentioned in the link I provided. The author provided three links to counter-arguments.

I also have the same problem that my knowledge of physics doesn't go far beyond common sense. So my ability to scientifically evaluate the arguments is limited. I'm at the mercy of the physicists.

I must have missed the references in the article. No, I can't say I can help you there. My understanding is limited to a basic understanding of college level physics.

 

[Rize]

Well, I read the PM article. The sections related to the demolitions theory do not address any of the significant points in the article I posted above. And that is expected as the PM article was published in early 2005 while the article I linked was written by the physiscist at BYU and published in September or October of 2005 (incorporating the NIST report cited by PM that wasn't yet published at the time of the PM article's publishing).

The three sources refuting the PM article the author cites are:

Baker, Jeremy (2005). “Contrary to Popular (Mechanics’) Belief,” Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 14 (Spring-Summer 2005).

Hoffman, James (2005). “Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,” Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005).

Meyer, Peter (2005). "Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,"

Only the third had a provided web link. http://serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

The other two may by locatable. In any case, a refutation of the PM article isn't really necessary because it doesn't address a number of the issues brought up by the article I linked to. The jury is still out in other words.

Specifically, it doesn't address how the temperatures got hot enough to produce the molten metal found at the site, it doesn't address the squibs, and it doesn't address the uniformity of the collapse of the buildings which suggest professional demolation rather than uncontrolled failure. Finally it couldn't possibly address the weakness of the NIST report because that report was not publically available until months after the PM article was published.

So in short, the PM article is almost entirely useless here. We'll need other articles. If anyone has bothered to specifically refute the article I linked, that would be quite helpful. *googles* ...

 

[Sycophant]

I skimmed the article - I can't contest the physics, it certainly isn't my area. But the main reason I don't believe these theories is that I don't believe that all of the people involved in making it happen could keep it quiet.

I'm certain there are things we haven't been told about 9/11, but I really don't think it was a plan masterminded by the government involving controlled demolition.

 

[Daniel19]

The notion of 9/11 being an inside job has become quite popular in recent years. A poll done by Zogby showed that over half of New Yorkers believe that the government had prior knowledge but failed to act. A second poll taken on CNN's Anderson Cooper show showed that %90 of respondents said "Yes" when asked if there was a government cover up regarding 9/11.

--Reports of explosives/explosions in the WTC--

MSNBC reported on 9/11 that other explosives were found in the buildings, saying,

”Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion."​

continuing...

"I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the world trade center aside from the ones that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it."

Another report from NBC, done by Pat Dawson, states that:

"....The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York told me that...er...shortly after 9 o'clock here had roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there...er... and that basically he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could but he said that there was another explosion which took place and then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion which took place in one of the towers here.

So obviously he, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact was, he thinks, may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building...er... so that's what we have been told by...erm...Albert Turi who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he told me that just moments ago."

Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex admited on a PBS documentary that building #7 was "Pulled" on 9/11, out of his own mouth, he states,

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and i said, we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pullit. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The term "Pull" is demolition lingo for a controlled demolition.

When we watch the film of the collapse of building #7, we see the center part of the building begin to fall first, a "crimp" forms and the rest of the building follows. This is a key indicator of a perfectly executed demolition.

Now, the question remains, how did the explosives get pre-positioned so quickly if the building was indeed demolished?

A controlled demolition takes weeks if not months of preperation. Why havnt we heard of the heroic men and women that would have carried out this seemingly impossible feat?

 

[Rize]

Please don't paste things without a source, and please keep the pastings limited (that is, paste the source and give your own interpretation of it with perhaps a small snippet). I know there are a number of ridiculous theories out there and it would be good if we can carefully keep this discussion focused on the most reasonable ones.

Also, if you're going to quote extensively, use the CF's quote feature so we can clearly see where you've quoted things and where you're commenting.

 

[kalel29]

You guys really need to lay off of the conspiracy theories. I really don't think that if the Bush admin is as incompentant as you say they are, could have pulled this off, nor would they want to. What could the President have gained from 9/11?

 

[Rize]

You guys really need to lay off of the conspiracy theories. I really don't think that if the Bush admin is as incompentant as you say they are, could have pulled this off, nor would they want to. What could the President have gained from 9/11?

Who is saying that the Bush admin is so incompetent? I'm a libertarian and extremely fiscally conservative and used to be solidly republican. I'm as skeptical as you are, but this isn't helping at all.

You can't just dismiss this. I provided a source who is a doctor of physics at a christian university (mormon specifically) that raises a number of interesting points. If you have some evidence specifically refuting those points I'd like to see it, but this out of hand dismissal is completely useless.

I'm not interested in the motives of whoever might have planted explosives, I'm interested PURELY in the possibilitiy that explosives were planted based on a scientifica analysis of the data. Who and why planted them (if they were planted) is a discussion for another thread (if you don't mind).

 

[Law of Loud]

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and i said, we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pullit. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The term "Pull" is demolition lingo for a controlled demolition.

Lousy conspiracy theory. To pull it is also a term for pulling out, or withdrawing from a building that you're not certain can hold. This assumed that he meant the demolition terminology, which if this was actually preplanned, no idiot in their right mind would just blurt out the fact that they were actually finishing a preplanned demolition.

If this was pre-planned by the Bush Administration, you wouldn't have had these statements on 9/11. That would have been much more carefully monitered and controlled.

 

[Rize]

I skimmed the article - I can't contest the physics, it certainly isn't my area. But the main reason I don't believe these theories is that I don't believe that all of the people involved in making it happen could keep it quiet.

I'm certain there are things we haven't been told about 9/11, but I really don't think it was a plan masterminded by the government involving controlled demolition.

I have serious doubts as to that idea myself. However, based on what I've read, I have to consider it. How and why explosives might have gotten there is a matter few people are capable of answering. Who is really knowledgable on the capabilities of the less public portions of our government? As I said above, let's forget about who might have done it and how theymight have done it and concentrate on whether or not the physical evidence alone suggests it.

 

[Law of Loud]

Stresses on the building? For one, it's not just the stress of a 650 degree fire. Rather, there's also a significant stress to consider from the airplane hitting the structure, that could have significantly weakened those floors. When one floor collapsed, the momentum caused the rest to follow.

 

[kalel29]

Who is saying that the Bush admin is so incompetent? I'm a libertarian and extremely fiscally conservative and used to be solidly republican. I'm as skeptical as you are, but this isn't helping at all.

You can't just dismiss this. I provided a source who is a doctor of physics at a christian university (mormon specifically) that raises a number of interesting points. If you have some evidence specifically refuting those points I'd like to see it, but this out of hand dismissal is completely useless.

I'm not interested in the motives of whoever might have planted explosives, I'm interested PURELY in the possibilitiy that explosives were planted based on a scientifica analysis of the data. Who and why planted them (if they were planted) is a discussion for another thread (if you don't mind).

Almost all those who call themselves Democrats say Bush is incompetent. If you want proof, look at the Opinion sections of every major newspaper.

As for the scientific part concerning explosives being planted, do you realize how much plastic explosives it would take to knock down those builidings? I'm sorry, but you couldn't get that many any there without someone noticing it. There is not one iota of fact to support this conspiracy, therefore, I'll chalk it up to another loonie wanting to spread hysteria around.

 

[Rize]

Almost all those who call themselves Democrats say Bush is incompetent. If you want proof, look at the Opinion sections of every major newspaper.

As for the scientific part concerning explosives being planted, do you realize how much plastic explosives it would take to knock down those builidings? I'm sorry, but you couldn't get that many any there without someone noticing it. There is not one iota of fact to support this conspiracy, therefore, I'll chalk it up to another loonie wanting to spread hysteria around.

I'm well aware of this. Who cares? That does not necessarily mean he is incompetent. If he is incompetent, then he is not necessarily in control of the government to any significant extent. He may be a puppet. Now AGAIN I ask that we focus on the science not the administration.

As for the mention of plastic explosives... please just get out of this thread. You clearly have not read the article I linked to and are just raving rather than applying rational thought to the debate I was trying to start.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to have a cautious conversation about what appears to be a ridiculous charge. I don't need you and others shouting that it is ridiculous. I know it is already. That doesn't necessarily make it impossible.

 

[Daniel19]

Let's clear this up right now, this issue is neither democrat nor republican.

What could a president/king/government gain from terrorism?

Governments througout history have carried out attacks against their own people to further their own agendas, history has shown us this much.

Operation Northwoods, a declassified military document details how to stage terror attacks in order to justify an invasion of Cuba in 1963.

ABC news reported on this document. (link here)

The National Security Archive has the full PDF document here

The document states,

"...casualty lists in US Newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

"A Remember the maine incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow u a drone (Unmanned) vessel anywhere in Cuban waters."

The document continues...

"The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew."

Continuing...

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

This plan is putting to work the Hegelian dialectic, or, Problem, Reaction, Solution.

By creating the problem, the targeted population reacts, and desires a solution to their dilema. Being the orchestrator of this problem, you present the population with your desired solution.

Hitler used this scientific forumula in his rise to power.

By burning the Reichstag building, and blaming it on his political enemies, Hitler succesfully convinced the government to pass the enabling act, thus setting Hitler up as supreme ruler.

Does "Pull it" really mean a controlled demolition?

Later, in the same documentary featuring Larry Silverstein's admission, (America Rebuilds) demolition crews can be heard preparing for the demolition of the remaining reckage of a damaged building in New York in the days after 9/11.

"Oh we're getting ready to pull building six." one crew member states.

Just as a side note, in no way do i believe the Bush administration alone carried out these attrocities, Bush is a front man. This crime goes beyond any president and into a dark world of corruption and evil that is beyond any immagination.

 

[Law of Loud]

Does "Pull it" really mean a controlled demolition?

Later, in the same documentary featuring Larry Silverstein's admission, (America Rebuilds) demolition crews can be heard preparing for the demolition of the remaining reckage of a damaged building in New York in the days after 9/11.

"Oh we're getting ready to pull building six." one crew member states.

The term "pull" might well refer to a controlled demolition. At the same time, it has MANY other meanings, and no idiot would blurt out, "We're committing fraud" on national TV.

 

[Rize]

Does "Pull it" really mean a controlled demolition?

Later, in the same documentary featuring Larry Silverstein's admission, (America Rebuilds) demolition crews can be heard preparing for the demolition of the remaining reckage of a damaged building in New York in the days after 9/11.

"Oh we're getting ready to pull building six." one crew member states.

Just as a side note, in no way do i believe the Bush administration alone carried out these attrocities, Bush is a front man. This crime goes beyond any president and into a dark world of corruption and evil that is beyond any immagination.

Pull it could go either way so it's useless as evidence for or against the idea. As for how deep a conspiracy might go if it exists... let's just stick with whether or not there is more than meets the eye here.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Checked out the WTC7 video at the link provided in the OP. It makes a big deal of so-called "squibs" seen in the video - neglecting to mention that they are at the very top of the building.

Controlled demolitions place charges at the bottom - and use the building's upper floor mass to collapse the lower floors.