9/11 was an inside job

[Nous]

For the third time, phrased a slightly different way: any fully involved office fire is much hotter than the temperature of typical office materials burning in open air.

See, this is why whatever you're trying to say is so confusing and confused: Are you claiming that the fires in the Towers were not "in open air"? Prove your claims. Anyone can make crazy claims.

Are you claiming that there is any reason to conclude that the WTC floor assemblies behaved any differently than the ones in the Cardington tests? If so, prove your claims.

I already linked to Table 1 here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf Prove that office-material fires produce temperature that hot.

Maybe eventually some of these facts will sink in.

 

[Nous]

Your rant didn't warrant a complete sentence, no.

Journal of 9/11 Studies - RationalWiki

If you dispute that the Journal of 9/11 Studies is peer-reviewed, then prove it. Your adolescent websites are definitely not peer-reviewed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See, this is why whatever you're trying to say is so confusing and confused: Are you claiming that the fires in the Towers were not "in open air"?

I guess we're going for #4.

Yes. A fire in an enclosed space like a building is not in open air.

Edit: I've explained the relevant differences between a fire in a building and a fire in open air. I'm not going to do it again.

Prove your claims. Anyone can make crazy claims.

I figured that we could have reached common ground on the fact that the WTC 7 fire happened in a building with walls, floors and ceilings. My mistake for assuming, I guess.

Edit: do you understand what flashover is? If you do, please explain what you think the term means.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't it possible that several isolated bombs could have been placed in key positions - not necessarily for a "controlled demolition," but enough to bring down the building?

The greater the number, the lessened probability it can be done without detection.
But there are other problems with the bomb theory (as discussed in various reports),
eg, explosion driven shattered windows leaving perpendicular to the walls at hi velocity
(particularly true for smaller hi energy explosives which have a faster shock wave)
would've been observed.

We're not talking about a government building. It was as public as a shopping mall. Lots of strangers going in and out, lots of tourists. Anyone caught in the wrong area can just pass themselves off as another "lost tourist" and be on their way. And in a building that large, even those who work there probably won't know or recognize everyone. How can they?

I venture that a commercial building would be even harder to rig for demolition than a
government one. In the latter, government could give marching orders to management
& maintenance. Lesser occupants could be kept more in the dark. But a commercial
building wouldn't work that way. The plethora of strangers would be the public, who
wouldn't bear identification, wouldn't be known to staff, & wouldn't be allowed to open
up walls & plant bombs (either during or after business hours).

But apparently not enough to endanger the project.

We don't know if the project was endangered....only that it succeeded despite the numerous leaks.
But that's not the issue. The salient point is that extraordinary efforts notwithstanding, they could
not keep it secret either during planning.

I'm not sure that these qualify as "popular" conspiracy theories. But in any case, I never said that it makes it true. I just reject the notion that a lot of people being involved would make it impossible to keep as a secret. That doesn't stop all leaks, as you've pointed out, but it still allows for the government to do damage control.

I think in terms of probability.
The 9/11 conspiracy theory is simply far far too unlikely compared to the buildings failing due to plane crashes.
There's a theory running around that Jews toppled the buildings.
Is this conspiracy equally cromulent despite the fact that it's even less likely than a government conspiracy?

I'm not even all that convinced that it would take all that many people to keep it a secret, but hypothetically, if a large government intelligence agency ordered a group of specially-trained agents to sneak in and blow up a building, my guess is that they could probably pull it off - somehow. The government already employs people who know how to do such things, and it doesn't even require alien technology or mercury vortex anti-gravity fields.

The devil is in the "somehow" that a small group could do it. Black ops people are
not like in the movies...ultra-gifted genius omni-martial arts experts with magical luck.
I've seen no proposal which would make a caper this size possible by a small group
of real soldiers/spies. It's unreasonable

Compare that to the theory that a group of terrorists commandeered commercial
airliners which were utterly unprepared for a takeover scenario. This is something
which has actually happened before. It can be done by a far smaller group than
a simulation of what they did. They only needed secrecy for a few people in the
few months leading up to the act. Contrast that with the government conspiracy,
which would require secrecy both during planning, & then for many decades after
the act.

If government were actually behind 9/11, the simplest way to bring down the
buildings would be to have military types impersonate Islamic terrorists, &
do exactly what was done with the planes. Simple, eh?

Uh oh....did I just start a new conspiracy theory?

I haven't studied the personal histories of the conspiracy theorists regarding this.

How many claim to have been involved in the conspiracy?

Secrets might leak out, but actually obtaining enough evidence to prove wrongdoing is a far different matter. That's where most conspiracy theories fall short, since they only have bits and pieces - not enough to prove that anyone was part of any conspiracy.

Aye, conspiracy theories survive because they're always adjustable to be non-disprovable.
Sie sind nicht nur nicht richtig, sie sind nicht einmal falsch!
(I wondered if I could still construct a simple sentence in The Devil's language.)

Yes, but we're also inundated with disinformation and "fake news," so even if something does leak out, it could be dismissed as "false" when it really is "true" (or vice versa).

If an actual conspirator came forward, this would be detectable within the noise.

I really have no idea one way or the other. Maybe it was a government plot, maybe not. I don't make any of this stuff up myself. I just hear about it and read about it and various websites. I don't know where it originated or why it seems to endure - even in the absence of any official acknowledgement or investigation or prosecution.

Always remember that on the internet, all things are true.
So it's necessary to activate one's BS alarm, & read with a jaundiced eye.
Alas, too few people have experience in relevant sciences & industries to
adequately evaluate many of the claims.

One possible reason might be the government's track record of deceit and secrecy in the name of national security. Battleship Maine, Gulf of Tonkin - things like that have left a bad taste in people's mouths which brings about mistrust of government. The JFK Assassination seems to be the granddaddy of modern conspiracy theories, and questions still linger and persist about that event. A lot of the early theories cropped up at the same time as the 60s-era protests were heating up, when a lot of people were accusing the government of being up to no good. The revelations about Hoover's FBI, the Pentagon Papers, and then Watergate. So, the idea of government conspiracies has already been planted in Americans' minds for generations - and some of them turned out to be true.

I dislike....I loathe our thug & cretin filled government.
I don't sing the national anthem....don't even place my hand
on my heart. I don't say the pledge. I don't fly the flag.
I'm all for not trusting a government which is capable of great
evil, including even some conspiracies which aren't theoretical.
But neither will I blame it for things it didn't do.

Well, they still could have been dupes or patsies or otherwise working as government agents pretending to be Islamic terrorists.

It could also be that all 9/11 conspiracy theorists are extremist Muslim agents
planted here to advance Islamic apologetics, & to subvert our government.
You might say I'm wrong. But as our friend would say, "Prove it!".

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't have a clue as to how a building might be "rigged for controlled demolition" with nanothermite. It may have been incorporated into an expoxy that was spray painted on stairwells, or in areas accessed by stairwells. Or it may have been in devices that looked like fire alarms. Or may have been boxes placed in the storage rooms on every 5th floor.

You're joking now, right?
I recommend some additional engineering sounding terms to ramp up the humor.
Try inserting.....
"interstitial boron"
"stress tensor"
"hexagonal close packed crystal"
"tri-axial tensile stress"
"rheological"
"polaric ions"
"prefamulated amulite"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're joking now, right?
I recommend some additional engineering sounding terms to ramp up the humor.
Try inserting.....
"interstitial boron"
"stress tensor"
"hexagonal close packed crystal"
"tri-axial tensile stress"
"rheological"
"polaric ions"
"prefamulated amulite"

70% of sounding like an engineer is just replacing the word "thingamajig" with two words that apply in different cases:

- if it moves, it's a linkage.
- if it doesn't move, it's a bracket.

 

[Revoltingest]

70% of sounding like an engineer is just replacing the word "thingamajig" with two words that apply in different cases:

- if it moves, it's a linkage.
- if it doesn't move, it's a bracket.

I never tire of this.
Oddly, some people don't see any humor in it....

 

[Stevicus]

The greater the number, the lessened probability it can be done without detection.
But there are other problems with the bomb theory (as discussed in various reports),
eg, explosion driven shattered windows leaving perpendicular to the walls at hi velocity
(particularly true for smaller hi energy explosives which have a faster shock wave)
would've been observed.

I venture that a commercial building would be even harder to rig for demolition than a
government one. In the latter, government could give marching orders to management
& maintenance. Lesser occupants could be kept more in the dark. But a commercial
building wouldn't work that way. The plethora of strangers would be the public, who
wouldn't bear identification, wouldn't be known to staff, & wouldn't be allowed to open
up walls & plant bombs (either during or after business hours).

Couldn't the same marching owners be given by the building owners (if they were in on it)? They could just tell them that they're bringing in work crews to work on the fire alarm system or some kind of excuse like that. The rent-a-cops wouldn't know the difference, and no one else would be the wiser.

We don't know if the project was endangered....only that it succeeded despite the numerous leaks.
But that's not the issue. The salient point is that extraordinary efforts notwithstanding, they could
not keep it secret either during planning.

The other salient point is that theories about 9/11 aren't exactly secret either.

I think in terms of probability.
The 9/11 conspiracy theory is simply far far too unlikely compared to the buildings failing due to plane crashes.
There's a theory running around that Jews toppled the buildings.
Is this conspiracy equally cromulent despite the fact that it's even less likely than a government conspiracy?

Yeah, I've heard that theory, too. But whether the buildings fell due to airplanes or planted bombs, it still doesn't prove the "whodunit." The government still doesn't even know who was ultimately behind it. All of that is just a theory, too. The invasion of Afghanistan revealed nothing about 9/11.

The devil is in the "somehow" that a small group could do it. Black ops people are
not like in the movies...ultra-gifted genius omni-martial arts experts with magical luck.
I've seen no proposal which would make a caper this size possible by a small group
of real soldiers/spies. It's unreasonable

Is it really all that unreasonable? The same government agencies have been known to engineer military coups in other countries and still have "plausible deniability." That, to me, would seem more difficult than simply blowing up a building.

Compare that to the theory that a group of terrorists commandeered commercial
airliners which were utterly unprepared for a takeover scenario. This is something
which has actually happened before. It can be done by a far smaller group than
a simulation of what they did. They only needed secrecy for a few people in the
few months leading up to the act. Contrast that with the government conspiracy,
which would require secrecy both during planning, & then for many decades after
the act.

We already know that the government has the means to keep secrets for decades. They've been keeping secret files on the JFK Assassination for much longer, so we know that it's possible.

If government were actually behind 9/11, the simplest way to bring down the
buildings would be to have military types impersonate Islamic terrorists, &
do exactly what was done with the planes. Simple, eh?

Yes, that's a distinct possibility.

Uh oh....did I just start a new conspiracy theory?

I think the idea of the hijackers being government agents has been advanced before. That's why I consider all the technical jargon about "controlled explosions" to be a red herring, since it proves nothing about the actual hijackers on the planes.

How many claim to have been involved in the conspiracy?

Well, they must have gotten the information from somewhere originally. It would be unreasonable to conclude that they just made it up out of the blue. Why would anyone do that?

If Al Qaeda did it, I can't see that they would have any hesitation in admitting it. Terrorists want to be credited for their dastardly deeds; they're not the kind who would try to pin it on someone else.

Apart from that, no one would have any incentive or motive to blame it on the government - unless they genuinely believed that they were guilty of wrongdoing.

Aye, conspiracy theories survive because they're always adjustable to be non-disprovable.
Sie sind nicht nur nicht richtig, sie sind nicht einmal falsch!
(I wondered if I could still construct a simple sentence in The Devil's language.)

One purpose served by conspiracy theories is that they're often very good at poking holes in the "official version." That's why the JFK conspiracy theories persisted, since they started with the Warren Report and saw it as BS.

If an actual conspirator came forward, this would be detectable within the noise.

Or you may not be able to hear it at all. If there was a conspiracy and someone tried to spill the beans, they could be eliminated, silenced, discredited.

Personally, I find it incredibly interesting that there are so many people coming out of the woodwork to challenge, discredit, and ridicule 9/11 conspiracy theories, almost as if they have a personal stake in the matter. Most people probably wouldn't pay it much mind at all. Most people just get on with their lives and let the conspiracy theorists have their theories. It's no skin off them. But there are some people who just can't let it go and have to argue about it.

I noticed this a lot on one of the JFK boards I used to frequent. Those who emphatically insisted that Oswald acted alone were practically obsessed about it. Those who entertained even the slightest doubts about that were instantly ridiculed, denigrated, and mocked as some kind of "conspiracy loon." I noticed a recurring pattern of this particular tactic.

Always remember that on the internet, all things are true.
So it's necessary to activate one's BS alarm, & read with a jaundiced eye.

For me, it depends. If they want my money, then I'm going to be leery. If someone just wants to advance an idea and isn't asking for anything in return, then I may still listen. No harm in that.

I have no real problem with anti-government attitudes, either. If one wanted to stoke up anti-government sentiment, one could just as easily use information known to the public and considered truthful. There wouldn't be any need to come up with any "theories."

A common thread I've noticed about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to paint the government as some kind of all powerful entity with almost godlike powers. The CIA, NSA, FBI, the Military-Industrial Complex, along with various private organizations - it all makes it seem like some giant beast, far too powerful for mortal men to even challenge. This is my main beef with conspiracy theories.

Alas, too few people have experience in relevant sciences & industries to
adequately evaluate many of the claims.

This is also true. That's where these discussions can get bogged down, since it becomes a battle of "my expert is better than your expert." But the average layman may not have the knowledge or expertise to be able to properly evaluate conflicting testimony from different "experts."

In practice, at least as it goes on message boards like this one, I've noticed that it's usually dominated by competing laymen - along with people who might have a little more knowledge than the average layman, but not necessarily at "expert" level.

People might be impressed by statements which start off with "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed," but then I might wonder about that 5th dentist and why he didn't agree with the other 4. Does that automatically make him a bad dentist - or does he know something that the other 4 don't?

I dislike....I loathe our thug & cretin filled government.
I don't sing the national anthem....don't even place my hand
on my heart. I don't say the pledge. I don't fly the flag.
I'm all for not trusting a government which is capable of great
evil, including even some conspiracies which aren't theoretical.
But neither will I blame it for things it didn't do.

I'm not sure that it's about "blaming." I think it's more about being suspicious and wary of their intentions. I don't see a problem with putting the government on the spot and making them explain themselves.

As I see it, the government is big enough to defend itself if it is accused of wrongdoing.

It could also be that all 9/11 conspiracy theorists are extremist Muslim agents
planted here to advance Islamic apologetics, & to subvert our government.
You might say I'm wrong. But as our friend would say, "Prove it!".

It could be that, although I would also look at the aftermath and results. It didn't advance the cause of Islam in America, nor did it subvert our government. The population was not cowed at all; the people were outraged in a fit of war fever. We wanted blood and our pound of flesh. We accepted the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. We were ready to give our government a virtual blank check to "do whatever it takes" to flush out these terrorists, send them to Guantanamo, invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban.

From the terrorists' standpoint, they didn't really gain anything in the long run. They actually lost more than they gained. They lost control of Afghanistan, Bin Laden killed, along with other key leaders. Anti-Muslim sentiment was extremely high in the days and months following 9/11, and it still seems to linger on in multiple countries. They didn't make any friends that way. If they expected 9/11 to be some kind of grandstand play with the expectation of bigger and better things, then it clearly didn't pan out as expected. If they expected Americans to be cowed or frightened by what they did, then they don't know us very well.

The one thing that is self-evident from examining the years that followed 9/11 - they were great years for the warmongers, bad years for the terrorists (suspected or not), especially those who ended up in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Bin Laden didn't fare too well either, although I guess he would just consider himself another "martyr."

 

[Revoltingest]

Couldn't the same marching owners be given by the building owners (if they were in on it)? They could just tell them that they're bringing in work crews to work on the fire alarm system or some kind of excuse like that. The rent-a-cops wouldn't know the difference, and no one else would be the wiser.

A private sector employer has far far less power than government.
Moreover, we don't blow up our buildings just because some politicians
demand it.
Wouldn't you think that someone in management or maintenance would
blow the whistle on a plot to kill thousands, wreck the country's economy,
& result in devasting useless foreign wars? I wouldn't accept such crap.

The other salient point is that theories about 9/11 aren't exactly secret either.

The secrecy lies in the conspirators not snitching on government.
The fact that the tin foil hat wearing crowd goes on & on about it
exposes only their own fantasies.

Yeah, I've heard that theory, too. But whether the buildings fell due to airplanes or planted bombs, it still doesn't prove the "whodunit." The government still doesn't even know who was ultimately behind it. All of that is just a theory, too. The invasion of Afghanistan revealed nothing about 9/11.

It was done by the Islamic terrorists who commandeered the planes.
I'm sure there were Islamic REMFs too, but to not know them all
doesn't defeat the obvious....they flew planes into the buildings.

Is it really all that unreasonable? The same government agencies have been known to engineer military coups in other countries and still have "plausible deniability." That, to me, would seem more difficult than simply blowing up a building.

It's unreasonable because so many misadventures like the Iranian coup (we overthrew a democratically elected government) became known. The conspiracies which are evidenced & are the best explanation are cromulent. The conspiracies which lack evidence, & are a terrible explanation are "conspiracy theories", ie, loopy.

We already know that the government has the means to keep secrets for decades. They've been keeping secret files on the JFK Assassination for much longer, so we know that it's possible.

How do you know a JFK conspiracy secret is being kept?
But consider the differences here.
To assassinate a president could be a conspiracy of only 2 people.
The conspiracy to fake demolishing multiple large buildings with airplanes
would involve thousands, not one of whom has yet come forward.
There's simply no good reason to presume that the most likely explanation
for 9/11 should be discarded in favor of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Yes, that's a distinct possibility.

I'd say "probability".

I think the idea of the hijackers being government agents has been advanced before. That's why I consider all the technical jargon about "controlled explosions" to be a red herring, since it proves nothing about the actual hijackers on the planes.

I don't think it's a red herring to those who believe it was controlled demolition.
It's their faith.

Well, they must have gotten the information from somewhere originally. It would be unreasonable to conclude that they just made it up out of the blue. Why would anyone do that?

People make up information, & also seize upon misinformation (eg, goofy eye witness accounts).
They'll be attracted by what reinforces what they want to believe.
People's beliefs aren't made real just because a great many people believe them fiercely.
Otherwise every religion would be true.

If Al Qaeda did it, I can't see that they would have any hesitation in admitting it. Terrorists want to be credited for their dastardly deeds; they're not the kind who would try to pin it on someone else.

Even today, terrorist organizations don't always initially claim responsibility.
I don't know their strategies.
Bin Laden did later claim responsibility for 9/11.

Apart from that, no one would have any incentive or motive to blame it on the government - unless they genuinely believed that they were guilty of wrongdoing.

Many have reason to blame government, especially those who hated GW Bush, & blamed him.
I know a lot of anti-government types who were quick to leap to such belief.

One purpose served by conspiracy theories is that they're often very good at poking holes in the "official version." That's why the JFK conspiracy theories persisted, since they started with the Warren Report and saw it as BS.

Like the holes poked in the Moon landings?
The "holes" are imagined by the conspiracy theorists.

Or you may not be able to hear it at all. If there was a conspiracy and someone tried to spill the beans, they could be eliminated, silenced, discredited.

Just like the government managed to silence Julian Assange?
Nah....gov cannot plug all leaks.
You give them far more credit for competence at malevolence than do I.

Personally, I find it incredibly interesting that there are so many people coming out of the woodwork to challenge, discredit, and ridicule 9/11 conspiracy theories, almost as if they have a personal stake in the matter. Most people probably wouldn't pay it much mind at all. Most people just get on with their lives and let the conspiracy theorists have their theories. It's no skin off them. But there are some people who just can't let it go and have to argue about it.

I expect loonies to emerge from the woodwork to provide conspiracy
theories for every major event/phenomenon. It's in their nature.

I noticed this a lot on one of the JFK boards I used to frequent. Those who emphatically insisted that Oswald acted alone were practically obsessed about it. Those who entertained even the slightest doubts about that were instantly ridiculed, denigrated, and mocked as some kind of "conspiracy loon." I noticed a recurring pattern of this particular tactic.

As @Wirey The Great once observed.....
"It's always the school janitor who has the real story on who killed JFK."

For me, it depends. If they want my money, then I'm going to be leery. If someone just wants to advance an idea and isn't asking for anything in return, then I may still listen. No harm in that.

One should listen critically.

I have no real problem with anti-government attitudes, either. If one wanted to stoke up anti-government sentiment, one could just as easily use information known to the public and considered truthful. There wouldn't be any need to come up with any "theories."

There is no need to come up with unreasonable conspiracy theories.

A common thread I've noticed about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to paint the government as some kind of all powerful entity with almost godlike powers. The CIA, NSA, FBI, the Military-Industrial Complex, along with various private organizations - it all makes it seem like some giant beast, far too powerful for mortal men to even challenge. This is my main beef with conspiracy theories.

I agree.

There....you got that out of me!

This is also true. That's where these discussions can get bogged down, since it becomes a battle of "my expert is better than your expert." But the average layman may not have the knowledge or expertise to be able to properly evaluate conflicting testimony from different "experts."

Aye, that's why I find it tedious to deal with people who proffer technical arguments
made by others, but they themselves won't or can't address the very material they link.

In practice, at least as it goes on message boards like this one, I've noticed that it's usually dominated by competing laymen - along with people who might have a little more knowledge than the average layman, but not necessarily at "expert" level.

Some are more "lay" than others, not even understanding the terms they wield, eg, "intragranular", "creep".

People might be impressed by statements which start off with "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed," but then I might wonder about that 5th dentist and why he didn't agree with the other 4. Does that automatically make him a bad dentist - or does he know something that the other 4 don't?

It requires closer examination.

I'm not sure that it's about "blaming."

If someone accuses government of a conspiracy to commit evil,
then I blame those conspirators.

I think it's more about being suspicious and wary of their intentions. I don't see a problem with putting the government on the spot and making them explain themselves.
As I see it, the government is big enough to defend itself if it is accused of wrongdoing.

But I wouldn't make reckless accusations just to put it on the spot.

It could be that, although I would also look at the aftermath and results. It didn't advance the cause of Islam in America, nor did it subvert our government. The population was not cowed at all; the people were outraged in a fit of war fever. We wanted blood and our pound of flesh. We accepted the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. We were ready to give our government a virtual blank check to "do whatever it takes" to flush out these terrorists, send them to Guantanamo, invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban.

And this points out how the terrorists won, ie, we fouled our own nest in response.

From the terrorists' standpoint, they didn't really gain anything in the long run. They actually lost more than they gained. They lost control of Afghanistan, Bin Laden killed, along with other key leaders. Anti-Muslim sentiment was extremely high in the days and months following 9/11, and it still seems to linger on in multiple countries. They didn't make any friends that way. If they expected 9/11 to be some kind of grandstand play with the expectation of bigger and better things, then it clearly didn't pan out as expected. If they expected Americans to be cowed or frightened by what they did, then they don't know us very well.

Perhaps they have different goals & expectations.
They struck a blow which devastated Americastan.
We responded by attacking countries in the Islamic world, which
could serve their desire for war with the infidel, & martyrdom.
That might be "success" to them.

The one thing that is self-evident from examining the years that followed 9/11 - they were great years for the warmongers, bad years for the terrorists (suspected or not), especially those who ended up in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Bin Laden didn't fare too well either, although I guess he would just consider himself another "martyr."

Aye, both Pubs & Dems waged these useless wars.
But have the terrorists really lost ground?
Their war is very much alive, & they've many martyrs
heading towards all those virgins in the afterlife.
I don't think they view reality & success they way you & I do.

 

[Nous]

I guess we're going for #4.

Yes. A fire in an enclosed space like a building is not in open air.

Edit: I've explained the relevant differences between a fire in a building and a fire in open air. I'm not going to do it again.


I figured that we could have reached common ground on the fact that the WTC 7 fire happened in a building with walls, floors and ceilings. My mistake for assuming, I guess.

So you agree that your comments about 'fires in open air" do not apply to the Twin Towers.

WTC7 did have mostly intact exterior walls, but there presumably was plenty of air getting through from the damage on the lower floors, and a number of windows seem to have been busted out.

In any case, you haven't cited any evidence that accounts for the extremely high temperatures in any of the WTC buildings as documented by the evidence noted in Table 1 here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

The iron spherules (for instance) were documented by R. J. Reynolds Group and US Geological Survey before they were discovered and examined by Jones et al.

Edit: do you understand what flashover is? If you do, please explain what you think the term means.

To the best of knowledge offhand, "flashover" refers to the ignition of gases that have built up in a space due to burning materials. How's that?

Was there ever any evidence of flashover in WTC7? (Not that I know of.)

 

[Nous]

You're joking now, right?
I recommend some additional engineering sounding terms to ramp up the humor.
Try inserting.....
"interstitial boron"
"stress tensor"
"hexagonal close packed crystal"
"tri-axial tensile stress"
"rheological"
"polaric ions"
"prefamulated amulite"

The only available evidence (as far as I know) by which to deduce something relating to how the WTC buildings might have been "rigged for controlled demolition" with nanothermite are the red/gray chips. They give me the impression of something that was spray-painted.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only available evidence (as far as I know) by which to deduce something relating to how the WTC buildings might have been "rigged for controlled demolition" with nanothermite are the red/gray chips. They give me the impression of something that was spray-painted.

One doesn't take out structure with paint....even if the
paint has the fancy futuristic sciencie "nano" prefix.
(No concentrated heat.)

 

[Nous]

One doesn't take out structure with paint....even if the
paint has the fancy futuristic sciencie "nano" prefix.
(No concentrated heat.)

If you ever become able to address any of the facts--especially facts such as the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC buildings, and the evidence of nanothermitic material in the 9/11 dust--be sure to let me know.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you ever become able to address any of the facts--especially facts such as the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC buildings, and the evidence of nanothermitic material in the 9/11 dust--be sure to let me know.

I just stated a fact.
Nano-thermic paint is an utterly ridiculous idea for melting steel structure.
By thinly spreading out the incendiary material , there is insufficient energy
concentration to raise the temperature of the entire cross-section of steel
to anywhere near melting temperatures. It wouldn't even feel warm.
There's no need to even quantify anything so very very wrong.

If you disagree, please explain how it's done...in your own words.
What's the burn rate, & the energy released per unit area?
Generously assuming 100% heat transfer to the steel, what's the temp increase?

 

[Stevicus]

A private sector employer has far far less power than government.

Over their own employees? I think it's a lot harder to fire a government employee than it is in the private sector.

Moreover, we don't blow up our buildings just because some politicians
demand it.

The Mafia might do it, if they're acting in collusion with corrupt politicians.

Wouldn't you think that someone in management or maintenance would
blow the whistle on a plot to kill thousands, wreck the country's economy,
& result in devasting useless foreign wars? I wouldn't accept such crap.

Neither would I, although I find it difficult to accept that anyone would wantonly murder and take lives in such a way, no matter if they're terrorists or government employees or Mafia hit men. But such things happen. It's a sick world.

The secrecy lies in the conspirators not snitching on government.

Was that how the leaks for the Manhattan Project came about? By someone "snitching"? Or was it just an unintentional mistake?

The fact that the tin foil hat wearing crowd goes on & on about it
exposes only their own fantasies.

Actually, I would say it's just the opposite, especially since there are so many who feel the need to come rushing to the government's defense.

It was done by the Islamic terrorists who commandeered the planes.
I'm sure there were Islamic REMFs too, but to not know them all
doesn't defeat the obvious....they flew planes into the buildings.

You don't think their actual affiliations are important? Sure, they flew planes into buildings, but who were they? Who were they working for? These are the questions which were never completely answered, and I think it's important, if someone wants to make a case that Islamic terrorists did it.

And if they did do it, then why would we bomb Muslims all the way across the other side of the world? It seems to me that the Muslim threat would only entail Muslims on American soil, not those on the opposite side of the planet. They're not even sure if they went after the right Muslims. At the very least, it levels the playing field in regards to "loopy conspiracy theories," because the government was obviously operating on their own set of "theories."

The same government also had a "theory" about WMDs in Iraq.

It's unreasonable because so many misadventures like the Iranian coup (we overthrew a democratically elected government) became known. The conspiracies which are evidenced & are the best explanation are cromulent. The conspiracies which lack evidence, & are a terrible explanation are "conspiracy theories", ie, loopy.

After decades, the government has grudgingly admitted to some activities which had been previously alleged but placed in the realm of "plausible deniability" and/or "conspiracy theory." Even then, they won't admit to too much, and they offer very little in terms of documentation or evidence. The CIA destroyed a lot of their files related to the Iranian coup. The government has followed a routine pattern of denial before they finally admit to anything.

How do you know a JFK conspiracy secret is being kept?

Because it was just announced that some of the documents related to the JFK assassination are being released. This would imply that some documents are still being kept secret. That's how I know.

A lot of documents were released back in the 1990s by an act of Congress (The JFK Act), which came about mainly because of renewed public discussion about the assassination due to the release of Oliver Stone's JFK. The conspiracy theorist compelled the government to release files that they wouldn't have otherwise released.

But consider the differences here.
To assassinate a president could be a conspiracy of only 2 people.
The conspiracy to fake demolishing multiple large buildings with airplanes
would involve thousands, not one of whom has yet come forward.

Thousands? How so?

Even if it did take that many people, it doesn't mean that everyone would know everything about the conspiracy.

There's simply no good reason to presume that the most likely explanation
for 9/11 should be discarded in favor of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Unless you look at those who are doing the "explaining," how complete their explanation was, and whether it's the most likely.

People make up information, & also seize upon misinformation (eg, goofy eye witness accounts).
They'll be attracted by what reinforces what they want to believe.
People's beliefs aren't made real just because a great many people believe them fiercely.
Otherwise every religion would be true.

We're not talking about a religious belief, though. Essentially, this amounts to a difference of opinion over different possible ways a building can collapse. Added to that is the question of whether the official version has any holes in it or whether it's an airtight case. Then we have the aftermath of war, illegal detentions, torture.

I mean, we have two witnesses. One has a long history of lying and deception, with a lot of blood on his hands, while the other may be a bit goofy and wears a tin foil hat, but otherwise innocent and harmless. Who is more likely to be making stuff up?

Even today, terrorist organizations don't always initially claim responsibility.
I don't know their strategies.
Bin Laden did later claim responsibility for 9/11.

It's still a bit murky, and we'll never really know, since they assassinated Bin Laden instead of bringing him to trial. That's another black mark against the government and weakens their case, since they're deliberately disposing of key material witnesses.

Many have reason to blame government, especially those who hated GW Bush, & blamed him.
I know a lot of anti-government types who were quick to leap to such belief.

Because they believe that they're guilty of wrongdoing. People don't just hate the government just out of the blue for no reason.

Like the holes poked in the Moon landings?
The "holes" are imagined by the conspiracy theorists.

I wasn't talking about the Moon landings. As you yourself said, not all conspiracy theories are the same, nor should they all be lumped in together like that.

But there are holes like the "magic bullet theory." When the government tries to sell us doozies like that, then that opens the field up for all kinds of weird stuff.

Just like the government managed to silence Julian Assange?
Nah....gov cannot plug all leaks.
You give them far more credit for competence at malevolence than do I.

I thought Assange was a problem for the UK government. Isn't he still in the Ecuadorian embassy there? I guess he's pretty well bottled up. There's clearly a campaign afoot to discredit and denigrate his reputation, such as bringing up rape charges and then later dropping them. There's also a lot of mocking and ridicule, which is pretty much how the 9/11 "truthers" are treated.

I would say that when there is more organized energy and zeal which is apparent in opposing a conspiracy theory, that is suspicious, in and of itself. It's not like anyone is actually going to do anything with some cornball "theory," even if it is out of left field. Best thing to do is just ignore it and let it go, if truly is so wacky and crazy, as you say.

But the louder and more zealous someone gets in denying something, that actually makes them look more guilty than if they'd just keep their mouth shut. It's almost as if the conspiracy theorists have struck a nerve in order to generate such passionate opposition. That's what gets my attention, more than the conspiracy theory itself.

I expect loonies to emerge from the woodwork to provide conspiracy
theories for every major event/phenomenon. It's in their nature.

I was referring to those who rush forth to oppose conspiracy theories.

As @Wirey The Great once observed.....
"It's always the school janitor who has the real story on who killed JFK."

That's another example of the tactic at work. It's cute and witty, but it doesn't really say much, nor does it address anything.

One should listen critically.

Of course.

There is no need to come up with unreasonable conspiracy theories.

I suppose it's a subjective judgment, whether something is "reasonable" or not.

I agree.

There....you got that out of me!

Sometimes we agree.

Aye, that's why I find it tedious to deal with people who proffer technical arguments
made by others, but they themselves won't or can't address the very material they link.

That's true for most people on both sides of the argument.

Some are more "lay" than others, not even understanding the terms they wield, eg, "intragranular", "creep".

Some people might say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

But if a thousand architects and engineers sign a document which suggests that there is a technical basis for what they're talking about, that will definitely get attention and should be addressed by those with equal standing.

It requires closer examination.

Exactly, and that's what this whole debate is about.

 

[Stevicus]

Here is the rest of the post, thanks to that confounded 12,000 character limit.

If someone accuses government of a conspiracy to commit evil,
then I blame those conspirators.

If it's an actual "accusation" or if it's merely a suggestion of a possibility, that would make a difference. The government works for the people, and if the government's explanation for an event is somehow lacking or unsatisfactory to a lot of people, then I would say the onus is on government to either release more information or come up with a better, more detailed, and transparent explanation for what happened.

That should be the real goal here, as I see it. The government has to clean up its act. It has to end the culture of secrecy and their militaristic ways. Ideally, the people should be vigilant and wary of anything the government says, and demand details and righteous justifications for what they do. We do not have to take the government at face value, nor should we. A free and democratic populace has to be vigilant and watchful of our government, because it is our government.

But I wouldn't make reckless accusations just to put it on the spot.

It depends on how "reckless" is defined.

And this points out how the terrorists won, ie, we fouled our own nest in response.

Yeah, although I would qualify that to say that it was good for the government and ruling class, but bad for the people and their civil liberties.

The terrorists didn't win, either. They certainly wouldn't want a more aggressive and intrusive US government either, since that would foul up their operations. They were likely hoping that the American people would be so shocked and scared that they would rise up and demand that the government stop bothering and interfering in Muslim countries. But just the opposite ended up happening.

Perhaps they have different goals & expectations.
They struck a blow which devastated Americastan.

I disagree that it "devastated" us. It was a great shock to America's complacency, to be sure. We never had something so big happen on our soil. But to put it into perspective, I would say it was more the geopolitical equivalent of a "sucker punch" and a bloody nose. They surprised us when we weren't looking, but it didn't devastate us nor did it even knock us down. We came back with a vengeance. We're still here, while Bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leadership, the hijackers - all gone.

The Japanese made a similar mistake when they bombed Pearl Harbor (although there have been lingering conspiracy theories about that event as well).

I don't know what it is with some people and governments around the world. They must think Americans are a bunch of wimps who will be only too glad to give in and stand down just because they lobbed a few bombs at us.

We responded by attacking countries in the Islamic world, which
could serve their desire for war with the infidel, & martyrdom.
That might be "success" to them.

Maybe, although they're also fighting each other. Al Qaeda is slipping down the charts, while ISIS is number one on the US hit list these days. But sooner or later, they'll go down and some other group will pop up to take their place.

It should also be noted that we're eliminating the enemies of the Saudis and other governments in that region. That's another possibility, that they could have set it up themselves to make it look like Al Qaeda did it. Most of the hijackers were Saudis, if I recall correctly. As far as Islamic states go, Saudi Arabia is definitely among the most medieval and extreme in terms of enforcing Islamic law within their borders. It's the birthplace of Islam. It's where Mecca is.

Aye, both Pubs & Dems waged these useless wars.
But have the terrorists really lost ground?
Their war is very much alive, & they've many martyrs
heading towards all those virgins in the afterlife.
I don't think they view reality & success they way you & I do.

The thing is, there are different wars going on. There are multiple factions vying for power in various nations in the Middle East. They're fighting and killing each other more than anything else. They can't even hijack planes anymore; now they're reduced to using vehicles to plow into people (which is still pretty bad, but nowhere near the scale of 9/11). Their wings have been clipped.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm going to address some points (the highlights), but not all.
Such long posts with so many points & questions are difficult to keep track of.

Over their own employees? I think it's a lot harder to fire a government employee than it is in the private sector.

That would depend upon the company.
But the issue is control, & in this regard, the federal government has more power.
And in the military, this control is at its maximum.

The Mafia might do it, if they're acting in collusion with corrupt politicians.

The conspiracy becomes even loopier if it's now about a Mafia & fed gov alliance.

Neither would I, although I find it difficult to accept that anyone would wantonly murder and take lives in such a way, no matter if they're terrorists or government employees or Mafia hit men. But such things happen. It's a sick world.

Again, it's not about what is in the realm of possibility, but about likelihood.
Using the Intelligent Design analogy....
Creationism & ID are not disprovable, & therefore possible.
But they fail in having any explanatory power.

Was that how the leaks for the Manhattan Project came about? By someone "snitching"? Or was it just an unintentional mistake?

The Olestra of its day, the project had massive leakage just due to the sheer number of people involved.

Actually, I would say it's just the opposite, especially since there are so many who feel the need to come rushing to the government's defense.

People will rush to the side which calls to them.
This doesn't point to cromulence.
Rational analysis should guide us.

You don't think their actual affiliations are important? Sure, they flew planes into buildings, but who were they? Who were they working for? These are the questions which were never completely answered, and I think it's important, if someone wants to make a case that Islamic terrorists did it.

I never claimed the terrorists' affiliations were unimportant.
But I don't see this playing a role in forensic analysis of building failure modes.

And if they did do it, then why would we bomb Muslims all the way across the other side of the world? It seems to me that the Muslim threat would only entail Muslims on American soil, not those on the opposite side of the planet. They're not even sure if they went after the right Muslims. At the very least, it levels the playing field in regards to "loopy conspiracy theories," because the government was obviously operating on their own set of "theories."

I see Americastanian military response as an expected reaction to an attack.
Government & the voters approved of the retaliation.

The same government also had a "theory" about WMDs in Iraq.

Iraq did indeed have WMDs.
(We supplied them with bio & chem components under Reagan in our proxy attack upon Iran.)
The only question was whether they had them before we attacked.
And regarding conspiracy theories, it's telling that government couldn't keep this secret either.

After decades, the government has grudgingly admitted to some activities which had been previously alleged but placed in the realm of "plausible deniability" and/or "conspiracy theory." Even then, they won't admit to too much, and they offer very little in terms of documentation or evidence. The CIA destroyed a lot of their files related to the Iranian coup. The government has followed a routine pattern of denial before they finally admit to anything.
Because it was just announced that some of the documents related to the JFK assassination are being released. This would imply that some documents are still being kept secret. That's how I know.

One should not leap from this to belief that every conspiracy theory will eventually be shown true.
Instead, take a rational & thorough look at one when judging it.

A lot of documents were released back in the 1990s by an act of Congress (The JFK Act), which came about mainly because of renewed public discussion about the assassination due to the release of Oliver Stone's JFK. The conspiracy theorist compelled the government to release files that they wouldn't have otherwise released.

Do you believe every conspiracy theory, just because government sometimes conspires.....
- Gov created AIDS to wipe out black people?
- Gov keeps water burning engines off the market because Big Oil tells them to?
- Gov prevents us from using anti-gravity devices so that the aliens are kept secret?
Or do you allow that some conspiracies make no sense?

Even if it did take that many people, it doesn't mean that everyone would know everything about the conspiracy.
Unless you look at those who are doing the "explaining," how complete their explanation was, and whether it's the most likely.

The explanations for the conspiracy theory which I've seen here have been lacking.
The supporters don't understand the material they cite.

We're not talking about a religious belief, though. Essentially, this amounts to a difference of opinion over different possible ways a building can collapse. Added to that is the question of whether the official version has any holes in it or whether it's an airtight case. Then we have the aftermath of war, illegal detentions, torture.

Conspiracy theory belief is quite similar to religious belief.
Adherents set aside contrary evidence, & create an edifice which is non-disprovable.
There's always some hidden factor (deeper conspiracy) which will be trotted out.
If not "God did it", it's "Government did it".

I mean, we have two witnesses. One has a long history of lying and deception, with a lot of blood on his hands, while the other may be a bit goofy and wears a tin foil hat, but otherwise innocent and harmless. Who is more likely to be making stuff up?
It's still a bit murky, and we'll never really know, since they assassinated Bin Laden instead of bringing him to trial. That's another black mark against the government and weakens their case, since they're deliberately disposing of key material witnesses.
Because they believe that they're guilty of wrongdoing. People don't just hate the government just out of the blue for no reason.
I wasn't talking about the Moon landings. As you yourself said, not all conspiracy theories are the same, nor should they all be lumped in together like that.
But there are holes like the "magic bullet theory." When the government tries to sell us doozies like that, then that opens the field up for all kinds of weird stuff.
I thought Assange was a problem for the UK government. Isn't he still in the Ecuadorian embassy there? I guess he's pretty well bottled up. There's clearly a campaign afoot to discredit and denigrate his reputation, such as bringing up rape charges and then later dropping them. There's also a lot of mocking and ridicule, which is pretty much how the 9/11 "truthers" are treated.
I would say that when there is more organized energy and zeal which is apparent in opposing a conspiracy theory, that is suspicious, in and of itself. It's not like anyone is actually going to do anything with some cornball "theory," even if it is out of left field. Best thing to do is just ignore it and let it go, if truly is so wacky and crazy, as you say.
But the louder and more zealous someone gets in denying something, that actually makes them look more guilty than if they'd just keep their mouth shut. It's almost as if the conspiracy theorists have struck a nerve in order to generate such passionate opposition. That's what gets my attention, more than the conspiracy theory itself.
I was referring to those who rush forth to oppose conspiracy theories.
That's another example of the tactic at work. It's cute and witty, but it doesn't really say much, nor does it address anything.
Of course.
I suppose it's a subjective judgment, whether something is "reasonable" or not.
Sometimes we agree.
That's true for most people on both sides of the argument.
Some people might say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
But if a thousand architects and engineers sign a document which suggests that there is a technical basis for what they're talking about, that will definitely get attention and should be addressed by those with equal standing.
Exactly, and that's what this whole debate is about.

This is all too hypothetical to have any bearing on the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
I'd rather make it about failure modes, but few on RF are familiar with
the technology. And none of those I know are siding with the conspiracy.

 

[Stevicus]

The conspiracy becomes even loopier if it's now about a Mafia & fed gov alliance.

"Loopy" is in the eye of the beholder. Still, such an alliance has happened before. The Mafia never would have gotten as powerful as it did without government complicity.

Again, it's not about what is in the realm of possibility, but about likelihood.
Using the Intelligent Design analogy....
Creationism & ID are not disprovable, & therefore possible.
But they fail in having any explanatory power.

I don't see what ID or Creationism has to do with this. You were saying that you wouldn't accept being part of any murder plot, and neither would I. But the simple fact that you or I would not commit murder does not mean that murderers don't exist or that it's in the realm of "intelligent design." That doesn't even make any sense. Some people are killers, some people aren't. It's that simple.

I tend to reject the "good citizen" defense, especially when it's used to define some theories as "loopy" while others not.

People will rush to the side which calls to them.
This doesn't point to cromulence.
Rational analysis should guide us.

I agree, although that has to go both ways. Most of those who rush to attack conspiracy theories seem guided more by emotion than by rationality. It's a knee-jerk reaction to having their favorite government insulted. I've seen this more often with the "LN" ("lone nut") side of the JFK debate than with 9/11, although I see many of the same familiar patterns.

They seem to adopt the notion that the best defense is a good offense. They know they can't defend the government's conclusions so the typical M.O. is to attack the assertions made by conspiracy theorists, using the tactics of ridicule, declaring that they're not experts and don't know what they're talking about. Sound familiar?

But they fall short when it comes to defending the government's position or actually explaining it in reasonable terms. They can't really explain much of anything, yet we're just supposed to take their word for it when they cavalierly proclaim the conspiracy theorists to be "loony."

I never claimed the terrorists' affiliations were unimportant.
But I don't see this playing a role in forensic analysis of building failure modes.

Yes, but as I said, that's a red herring that doesn't tell us one thing about who actually did it or what the motive was.

I see Americastanian military response as an expected reaction to an attack.
Government & the voters approved of the retaliation.

I don't recall the voters ever being allowed to vote on this, but when you say it's an "expected reaction to an attack," attack by whom? What country declared war on us? Are we going to attack some random country in retaliation for the Las Vegas shootings?

One should not leap from this to belief that every conspiracy theory will eventually be shown true.
Instead, take a rational & thorough look at one when judging it.

I think I do, and I never said that I actually believed any of these conspiracy theories. I never said I believed that 9/11 was an inside job. The possibility exists, but that's where it stands.

To me, I think it's even more irrational to believe that there must be a "final answer." It's just like people who think that the existence of God must be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, while others believe that the non-existence of God must be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I don't accept either position, since it will always remain a mystery which can never be solved.

I remember once on the JFK board where I stated that Oswald probably was the lone shooter, but we'll never know for certain. It will always remain a mystery. Some guy chimed in and scolded me for saying that, believing that there is "no mystery," that Oswald acted alone without any doubt and that anyone who doesn't believe that is some kind of paranoid conspiracy wingnut. This is the kind of intransigence one comes up against, and I'm sorry, but it's definitely not a rational and thorough way to look at things.

It doesn't mean that one has to believe every conspiracy theory out there, but it also doesn't mean that one should respond with knee-jerk disbelief every time someone advances a possibility of what might be. I see both positions as equally irrational.

Do you believe every conspiracy theory, just because government sometimes conspires.....

No, I don't believe every conspiracy theory, and I wish you would stop suggesting that I do.

- Gov created AIDS to wipe out black people?

I don't know of anyone who actually believes this, nor have I studied the origins or basis of this particular theory. On its face, it doesn't appear consistent with government's overall policies on civil rights. The whole idea is unconscionable, but if the government had the intention of wiping out black people, they could probably find easier and more effective ways of doing so without creating AIDS.

- Gov keeps water burning engines off the market because Big Oil tells them to?

Again, I don't know of anyone who believes this. I do recall hearing of a guy (around 1980) who called in to a radio station and claimed that he figured a way to get 300 mpg on his car, but he didn't want to market it since he was afraid the oil companies would have him killed. I don't know if it's true, but it makes sense that Big Oil would try to stop anything or anyone who could severely threaten their profit margin. Whether they have enough power to stop the government from allowing water-burning engines (if such things exist), that's another story. Even if that was the case, one might be able to get a water-burning engine illegally, on the black market. I would risk it and buy one, if the price was right.

- Gov prevents us from using anti-gravity devices so that the aliens are kept secret?
Or do you allow that some conspiracies make no sense?

Are you saying that the 9/11 conspiracy theory (or the JFK theory, for that matter) are in the same category as theories about anti-gravity devices and aliens?

I suppose if we have to draw a line somewhere, it can be at the point where we're dealing with known human possibilities using known technologies and methods. If a theory depends upon some unknown or uninvented technology (like water-burning cars or anti-gravity devices), then it might have to be treated differently.

The explanations for the conspiracy theory which I've seen here have been lacking.
The supporters don't understand the material they cite.

Some don't. But again, that's just as much on those who support the official version, since they don't really offer any explanations which are easy to understand. Those who claim a conspiracy are merely claiming that someone possibly snuck into the WTC and planted a bomb. Now, maybe they're wrong, maybe it didn't happen that way, but just outlining the possibility does not cross the threshold of "loopy," in my opinion.

The idea of governments creating pretexts to go to war or impose a police state is also not "loopy," since it's happened so many times before.

Of course, this doesn't prove any government wrongdoing about 9/11, but at least it demonstrates that it's not some "crazy theory," nor can it be compared with things which never happened before (like water-burning cars).

Conspiracy theory belief is quite similar to religious belief.
Adherents set aside contrary evidence, & create an edifice which is non-disprovable.
There's always some hidden factor (deeper conspiracy) which will be trotted out.
If not "God did it", it's "Government did it".

I don't really see it that way. Conspiracy theory is merely an exercise in questioning authority and not accepting them at face value. It's another form of skepticism, but with more of an anti-establishment bent, free-thinking and more open-minded than their detractors.

This is all too hypothetical to have any bearing on the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
I'd rather make it about failure modes, but few on RF are familiar with
the technology. And none of those I know are siding with the conspiracy.

Yeah, but making it about failure nodes is beside the point - a red herring, as I said before. I don't think it matters that much, since none of it proves the government's innocence in this matter. That's what I expect to see in this discussion, and I'm not seeing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Loopy" is in the eye of the beholder. Still, such an alliance has happened before. The Mafia never would have gotten as powerful as it did without government complicity.



I don't see what ID or Creationism has to do with this. You were saying that you wouldn't accept being part of any murder plot, and neither would I. But the simple fact that you or I would not commit murder does not mean that murderers don't exist or that it's in the realm of "intelligent design." That doesn't even make any sense. Some people are killers, some people aren't. It's that simple.

I tend to reject the "good citizen" defense, especially when it's used to define some theories as "loopy" while others not.



I agree, although that has to go both ways. Most of those who rush to attack conspiracy theories seem guided more by emotion than by rationality. It's a knee-jerk reaction to having their favorite government insulted. I've seen this more often with the "LN" ("lone nut") side of the JFK debate than with 9/11, although I see many of the same familiar patterns.

They seem to adopt the notion that the best defense is a good offense. They know they can't defend the government's conclusions so the typical M.O. is to attack the assertions made by conspiracy theorists, using the tactics of ridicule, declaring that they're not experts and don't know what they're talking about. Sound familiar?

But they fall short when it comes to defending the government's position or actually explaining it in reasonable terms. They can't really explain much of anything, yet we're just supposed to take their word for it when they cavalierly proclaim the conspiracy theorists to be "loony."



Yes, but as I said, that's a red herring that doesn't tell us one thing about who actually did it or what the motive was.



I don't recall the voters ever being allowed to vote on this, but when you say it's an "expected reaction to an attack," attack by whom? What country declared war on us? Are we going to attack some random country in retaliation for the Las Vegas shootings?



I think I do, and I never said that I actually believed any of these conspiracy theories. I never said I believed that 9/11 was an inside job. The possibility exists, but that's where it stands.

To me, I think it's even more irrational to believe that there must be a "final answer." It's just like people who think that the existence of God must be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, while others believe that the non-existence of God must be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I don't accept either position, since it will always remain a mystery which can never be solved.

I remember once on the JFK board where I stated that Oswald probably was the lone shooter, but we'll never know for certain. It will always remain a mystery. Some guy chimed in and scolded me for saying that, believing that there is "no mystery," that Oswald acted alone without any doubt and that anyone who doesn't believe that is some kind of paranoid conspiracy wingnut. This is the kind of intransigence one comes up against, and I'm sorry, but it's definitely not a rational and thorough way to look at things.

It doesn't mean that one has to believe every conspiracy theory out there, but it also doesn't mean that one should respond with knee-jerk disbelief every time someone advances a possibility of what might be. I see both positions as equally irrational.



No, I don't believe every conspiracy theory, and I wish you would stop suggesting that I do.



I don't know of anyone who actually believes this, nor have I studied the origins or basis of this particular theory. On its face, it doesn't appear consistent with government's overall policies on civil rights. The whole idea is unconscionable, but if the government had the intention of wiping out black people, they could probably find easier and more effective ways of doing so without creating AIDS.



Again, I don't know of anyone who believes this. I do recall hearing of a guy (around 1980) who called in to a radio station and claimed that he figured a way to get 300 mpg on his car, but he didn't want to market it since he was afraid the oil companies would have him killed. I don't know if it's true, but it makes sense that Big Oil would try to stop anything or anyone who could severely threaten their profit margin. Whether they have enough power to stop the government from allowing water-burning engines (if such things exist), that's another story. Even if that was the case, one might be able to get a water-burning engine illegally, on the black market. I would risk it and buy one, if the price was right.



Are you saying that the 9/11 conspiracy theory (or the JFK theory, for that matter) are in the same category as theories about anti-gravity devices and aliens?

I suppose if we have to draw a line somewhere, it can be at the point where we're dealing with known human possibilities using known technologies and methods. If a theory depends upon some unknown or uninvented technology (like water-burning cars or anti-gravity devices), then it might have to be treated differently.



Some don't. But again, that's just as much on those who support the official version, since they don't really offer any explanations which are easy to understand. Those who claim a conspiracy are merely claiming that someone possibly snuck into the WTC and planted a bomb. Now, maybe they're wrong, maybe it didn't happen that way, but just outlining the possibility does not cross the threshold of "loopy," in my opinion.

The idea of governments creating pretexts to go to war or impose a police state is also not "loopy," since it's happened so many times before.

Of course, this doesn't prove any government wrongdoing about 9/11, but at least it demonstrates that it's not some "crazy theory," nor can it be compared with things which never happened before (like water-burning cars).



I don't really see it that way. Conspiracy theory is merely an exercise in questioning authority and not accepting them at face value. It's another form of skepticism, but with more of an anti-establishment bent, free-thinking and more open-minded than their detractors.



Yeah, but making it about failure nodes is beside the point - a red herring, as I said before. I don't think it matters that much, since none of it proves the government's innocence in this matter. That's what I expect to see in this discussion, and I'm not seeing it.

We're covering well trodden ground.
I've nothing to add.

But I'll reiterate one thing...
Failure mode analysis is critical....
- If the buildings failed in a manner consistent with the airplane crashes, then
the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition is the poorer explanation.
- If the buildings failed in a manner inconsistent with the airplane crashes,
but consistent with controlled demolition, then this changes everything.

Red herring to you.
Crucial to me.

 

[Stevicus]

We're covering well trodden ground.
I've nothing to add.

But I'll reiterate one thing...
Failure mode analysis is critical....
- If the buildings failed in a manner consistent with the airplane crashes, then
the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition is the poorer explanation.
- If the buildings failed in a manner inconsistent with the airplane crashes,
but consistent with controlled demolition, then this changes everything.

Red herring to you.
Crucial to me.

This is why I think it's a red herring.

We're looking at one of two scenarios:

- Airplanes crashed into buildings and the impact caused the damage leading to collapse.
- A group of people snuck in and planted explosives beforehand.

Neither scenario tells us who did it. Remember that the central claim being made is "9/11 was an inside job," not an assertion about how the buildings were destroyed.

9/11 could have been an inside job either way. Likewise, even if it was destroyed by planted bombs, then it is also possible that Islamic terrorists planted the bombs, leaving the government off the hook.