First of all, I don't have anyone in on anything. My main point here is to address the possibilities due to the fact that there are so many conflicting reports from equally qualified individuals. Secondly, as I said earlier, the ASCE would not have to be in on a conspiracy, they simply could have been told to find out how THE PLANES brought down the twin towers and how DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THEIR COLLAPSE brought down building 7 (basically being told to put on their blinders to these events only and to only find evidence to support this conclusion.) If this did happen, it probably would have been passed down several layers all the way to the ASCE without anyone other than the very top being aware of the significance of why. Like many have said, it would have been nearly impossible to keep something like this a secret if there were a large number of people who were aware of a conspiracy within the system.
I agree: it would be nearly impossible to keep a secret like that.
Here's the problem, though: the whole argument of the conspiracy theorists is that the actual evidence points to the buildings being destroyed by something other than airplane strikes and the resulting fires. In the case of organizations like ASCE and NIST, as well as the government's own agencies who investigated the incident, you have people with full access to the actual evidence and with the expertise to interpret that evidence properly.
What you describe doesn't make any sense. When a team engages in a real forensic engineering study, they don't just take their client's word for what happened and write up their report on that basis. They start with a blank slate and see where the evidence leads them.
What about that link I posted earlier that had eight scientist finding nano-thermite in the WTC debris? Was that study just some conspiracy? As I said there are a lot of conflicting views from equally qualified people.
I haven't had a chance to look at the video yet, and I probably won't be able to look at it for a while.
I'm not really sure how they would find "nano-thermite" in the debris, though. Thermite is a very reactive mixture - in a fire, it would have ignited itself. And the residue from thermite would just be iron and aluminum oxides... but there would've been plenty of iron and aluminum in the building anyway.
To address the case of your professor this is really all I can say. The possibility of a conspiracy involving our gov't is obviously very difficult for many to even consider. How many times do you think someone hears about it and immediately dismisses it as "crazy" or "kooky" without even looking at the information? If someone has a reaction like this it often becomes very difficult for them to be objective in their reasoning.
Are you saying he didn't look at the information, or that I didn't?
He talked to us at length about the effect that the fire would have on the steel floor trusses, and how their sagging would create new loads on their connections at the beams.
There's no need to invoke a government conspiracy when the facts at hand, coupled with a basic understanding of the mechanisms involved, explain the events just fine.
On the flip side you have some people who just love a good conspiracy or have a hatred for the system so they have a biased view from another perspective.
Yep. Or attention-seekers, or people looking to make a profit for themselves off their stance.
I suspect this happens quite often with people who are on both sides of the fence. Not that they are being blatantly dishonest, but that their perception of how things are in the world prevents them from considering certain possibilities. Whether or not this is/was the case with your professor I don't know. When he gave his lecture it was very early after the event and lot of new information has surfaced since then (did he even know about building 7 at that point? Many people didn't find out about that until much later.) Have you talked to him lately, maybe he even has a different opinion now.
No, I haven't talked to him lately. I graduated in 2003 and he retired last year. He didn't mention Building 7.
I don't know for sure, but if they were being paid by the government, they could have possibly been swayed to come to the conclusion that those who are paying their checks wanted them to come to.
Any engineer who did something like that would be risking their livelihood as well as the possibility of serious fines or prison time. It wouldn't make sense.
Whereas it's been harder for me to find such a situation with some of the other scientists and engineers who have a problem the official explanation.
Really? "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" even solicits donations on
their web site. That money goes somewhere, and if they ever put out anything that agrees with the government version, their donor base disappears.
That seems like an incentive to me.
