9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

[Amskeptic]

These guys: "the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[40] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)"

So basically your answer to all of those experts is: "You're lying or ignorant".
Mike

Lying. On video tape. It is like a Jon Stewart piece in its brilliance.
The lead spokesperson for the NIST report is seen saying, "there were no reports of molten steel" followed by an embarrassment of rich clips from fire fighters, clean-up contractors, guest architectural consultants, structural engineers, all in succession, reporting on their first-hand sightings of molten steel. Molten steel.
Colin

[Lanval]

. Elevator shafts and central columns with 1 5/8" thick walls, do not.

Colin

On the contrary, they already have. You don't like it, so you argue that it's not possible. Nor was flight, before it happened. Nor survival of rabies infection, until it happened. Nor... enough. Question if you wish; that you have questions means nothing. You may question the flatness of the earth, or the moon landing or what have you. The truth exists outside of your doubts, nor do they in any way comment on the truth.

If it's reality, physical answers you seek, then you must go there, and test the thing yourself. With the engine door you can; with the WTC you cannot. Even if they let you, what would you do? How would you test the questions you have? To quote a favorite book:

"I could answer your questions, but you had best seek your own answers. They'll probably be wrong, but you'll be a little more satisfied with them because they're yours."

***************

As for your accusation of sophistry, my argument isn't intended to create a tautology. Rather, it points out that placing me in a category, you: 1. Deny there is a single "truth" that is knowable; 2. Oppose yourself to that category.

Does that make you a conspiracy theorist? Yes, because you argue the "conventional truth" is put out by people who are attempting to cover something up. Otherwise, you'd have no questions, eh? But that's all grad-speak; take ownership of your beliefs; if you think they're lying, covering up, then you argue for a conspiracy, by definition:

1. Make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.
2. (of events or circumstances) Seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment.

*****************
I forgot to add ~ use Ockham, please. If there were molten steel there, would it more likely be from:

1. A nationwide cover-up involving hundreds of people, to put thermite or other explosive material in the buildings

or

2. Some sort of explosive, purchased by a well-funded terrorist group, and brought on the plane by highjacking terrorists?

Which seems more likely? Which is based on proven events?

ML

Mike

[glasseye]

I forgot to add ~ use Ockham, please. If there were molten steel there, would it more likely be from:

1. A nationwide cover-up involving hundreds of people, to put thermite or other explosive material in the buildings

"Nationwide" and "hundreds" are inventions on your part. Some installation scenarios would require a half dozen on-location participants over a weekend or two.

or

2. Some sort of explosive, purchased by a well-funded terrorist group, and brought on the plane by highjacking terrorists?

"Some sort of explosive"? "brought on the plane"? Enough stored energy in your carry-on luggage to render tons of steel into a stayed-hot-for-weeks flowing liquid?

I think even American high-school chemistry students would laff out loud at that idea.

[Lanval]

I forgot to add ~ use Ockham, please. If there were molten steel there, would it more likely be from:

1. A nationwide cover-up involving hundreds of people, to put thermite or other explosive material in the buildings

"Nationwide" and "hundreds" are inventions on your part. Some installation scenarios would require a half dozen on-location participants over a weekend or two.

or

2. Some sort of explosive, purchased by a well-funded terrorist group, and brought on the plane by highjacking terrorists?

"Some sort of explosive"? "brought on the plane"? Enough stored energy in your carry-on luggage to render tons of steel into a stayed-hot-for-weeks flowing liquid?

I think even American high-school chemistry students would laff out loud at that idea.

Just to be clear, you're arguing that in my scenario, a handful of guys achieving this is so ridiculous a high school student would laff [sic], but when it's your scenario it's totally possible?

[glasseye]

Just to be clear, you're arguing that in my scenario, a handful of guys achieving this is so ridiculous a high school student would laff [sic], but when it's your scenario it's totally possible?

It was you that suggested that the highjackers carried aboard sufficient energy to render tons of steel liquid. That's I'm calling ridiculous.


What precisely is my scenario?

[glasseye]

Lying. On video tape. It is like a Jon Stewart piece in its brilliance.
The lead spokesperson for the NIST report is seen saying, "there were no reports of molten steel" followed by an embarrassment of rich clips from fire fighters, clean-up contractors, guest architectural consultants, structural engineers, all in succession, reporting on their first-hand sightings of molten steel. Molten steel.
Colin

Heck, haven't we all seen the images of liquid metal pouring out of the towers? Dripping off beams weeks later? Fires from office components don't do that. They didn't in any of the other high rise, steel-framed building fires on record.

We also saw the majority of the jet fuel burn instantly in those gigantic fireballs, so let's not say that the steel-liquefying fire was jet fuel.

What colour was the smoke?

Black smoke - > cool fire, oxygen-starved, slow burning.

The NIST report has been called "Exoneration by Computer Graphics". Not by me, though.

[steve74baywin]

If the Pentagon airplanes box was that mangled without many stories of high rise falling on top of them, I find that story that the 2 from the WTC towers never being found completely plausible.

I will give it possible. And there would be four from the two towers.
Wasn't the Pentagon plane the one many doubt was the jet they say?
It's been a while since I looked into this stuff.

Heck, haven't we all seen the images of liquid metal

Only us bad boys that dared to look at the non-official information.

[Lanval]

Just to be clear, you're arguing that in my scenario, a handful of guys achieving this is so ridiculous a high school student would laff [sic], but when it's your scenario it's totally possible?

It was you that suggested that the highjackers carried aboard sufficient energy to render tons of steel liquid. That's I'm calling ridiculous.


What precisely is my scenario?

Apparently this one, since it's the example you offered of an alternative explanation: " Some installation scenarios would require a half dozen on-location participants over a weekend or two." Are you saying that this scenario is also laughable? If so, why would you use an argument you disagree with as a counterpoint to my claim of large numbers needed? That's illogical...

Look. The original question was "Do the conspiracy theories hold water" - the answer is a qualified "no" because:

1. Some parts of the event are unusual, and given the fact that there is no other model of a similar event, we simply don't have a good explanation. Those remaining questions (on the part of a very minor number of people) are not enough to undo the the more rational, conspiracy-free explanation we've come up with.

2. Unless you claim that the vast majority of American and foreign people who have looked at this are ignorant, and you and a few others are the true see-ers of truth, the logic of mathematics takes over; many, many more people who are qualified to evaluate such things argue one way; a few who are qualified argue another. In this circumstance, whom ought we to believe? The answer is surely the larger number; otherwise your claim is that a very large number of well-trained men and women from around the United States have banded together to argue an explanation which, according to the conspiracies, they know to be false. Further, they argue this in the face of a public which contains other people trained and experienced as they are, but who are not part of the overall group making the argument. If the "conventional truth", as Colin refers to it, is so riddled with problematic issues, where is the vast groundswell of argument from the tens of thousands of people who are trained in this sort of thing arguing for a review?

Why are you and others so willing to discount the perceptions of one group, while privileging another?

Take Colin's ridiculous example above. To refute the statements of hundreds of experts, he arbitrarily selects another, less-well-trained group who say they saw molten metal, then privileges their speech! Why?! Why does Colin choose the latter group as "truth" and the former group as "lie"? On what basis? He neither tests their statements, nor even suggests why anyone as an audience ought to prefer the second group; Colin is smarter than that.

Simply put, the answers I offer have as much support as can be hoped for in this human experience; a wide range of men and women working seriously on a problem, with a high-level of expertise. No one here who has questions has offered even so much. Take your own argument from above; I claimed that no serious scientist agrees with this viewpoint. As a rebuttal, you offered a second-hand reference to an anonymous, "noted" Ph.D. who agreed with your point. That's worth nothing; an anonymous authority that no one can verify, that can't be tested? What good is that? Arguments must hinge upon logic, careful thinking, and as much verifiable fact as is available. Everything else is just men shouting in the darkness and the whirlwind.

Enough. The questions has been answered ad nauseum; you may accept or refuse the truth. The universe doesn't turn upon your agreement.

Mike

[Sylvester]

Any why no Pentagon aircraft strike images from all those security cameras? According to neighbouring businesses, "agents" appeared soon after the strikes and confiscated all of the camera data, yet none has been released. Why?

This was pretty helpful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQk ... re=related

[Amskeptic]

Elevator shafts and central columns with 1 5/8" thick walls, do not.
Colin

On the contrary, they already have. You don't like it, so you argue that it's not possible.

Stop dictating to me what I think, what I "like", and who I am. Do not declare my arguments "ridiculous" as you wrote above. It is all disrespectful.
I have questions! They have not been answered, much less answered in a way that "I do not like".
When confronted with an unusual precedent (the first steel skyscraper collapse on record) you cannot use that precedent as your assertion of proof.

There are simple physics questions about how these buildings collapsed, and structural engineers have indeed asked them. I listened to them, and decided that their questions were more valid than the answers provided by "verifiable fire experts".
Here is one of their questions:
The weakened steel beams hypothesis allows that the top 15 floors of one tower came down on the fire damaged area. Their analysis of load forces was fascinating. Apparently, the g-load of the top part of the building falling 12 to 24 feet when the fire damaged area "let go", is just not enough to initiate a successive pancake collapse through the vertical support columns. The columns below the damage area were already supporting all the weight above. The new load of a fifteen story section falling 24 feet onto already supporting support columns was insufficient to spark such an amazingly global collapse of the entire central core. Sorry. Those structural engineers who were so motivated as to speak up, not because they "needed a conspiracy", but because their questions were pressing, impressed me with the same sort of confusion. It was a real verifiable WTF moment. [/quote]

Question if you wish; that you have questions means nothing.

If it's reality, physical answers you seek, then you must go there, and test the thing yourself. With the engine door you can; with the WTC you cannot. Even if they let you, what would you do? How would you test the questions you have?

Let's say that you know jackshit of what you speak in the classroom. You were not there way far back in history. You rely on your exposure to many books that represent the knowledge that has been passed down through the years. You must interpret that knowledge, you must judge its veracity in the pattern of all information at your disposal. As a teacher, you offer some opposing views that came down the pike of time, and everybody! gets to accept! or not accept! some of the information! Those who learn from you will judge your perspective and accept some but not all of your arguments!
So why do you not offer me the courtesy of being well-read and experienced in the realm of structure and design and destruction, and allow me that I have questions! not answers! I *have* to rely on the same sort of information instruments as you do in your career.

my argument isn't intended to create a tautology. Rather, it points out that placing me in a category, you: 1. Deny there is a single "truth" that is knowable; 2. Oppose yourself to that category.

I did not place you in any category! You told me that if I did not accept the answers you decided to accept, I must be a conspiracist. I will tell you again, I have chosen not to accept the answers not because I "believe" in some alternate story, but because I trust the engineers who are dumbfounded by this bizarre bunch of collapsing steel skyscrapers! They have questions! I share them!

Does that make you a conspiracy theorist? Yes, because you argue the "conventional truth" is put out by people who are attempting to cover something up. Otherwise, you'd have no questions, eh?

No, I cannot believe this! It is so stubborn. I did not argue anything about a cover-up. You cannot dictate to me that "otherwise I'd have no questions". I have simple physics questions that must be held to a higher standard than human speculation and human suspicions and human trite categorizations.

take ownership of your beliefs; if you think they're lying, covering up, then you argue for a conspiracy, by definition:

This is bullying. That is what constant "you" statements do. That is why I have strived to point out when people leave their own god-given opinions and start telling others what they think or believe or say. I am so against that.

If there were molten steel there, would it more likely be from:

1. A nationwide cover-up involving hundreds of people, to put thermite or other explosive material in the buildings

or

2. Some sort of explosive, purchased by a well-funded terrorist group, and brought on the plane by highjacking terrorists?

Which seems more likely? Which is based on proven events?

I can't answer that, Michael. I do not know. I am at the question phase of my inquiry.

In my area of current expertise, old air-cooled Volkswagens, I have more questions than answers to this day. Why would I suggest that I have any answers about 9/11?
Colin
(why was sulphur residue found on the beams that were so quickly taken away and destroyed before forensics could be performed? I am only asking! Can you see that? It is a question for which I have no answer, no idea of why, no desire to sign up with conspiracists, I just have questions)

[steve74baywin]

It is a question for which I have no answer, no idea of why, no desire to sign up with conspiracists, I just have questions)

I'd like to welcome you to the club.
You asked questions about an official government story. That automatically makes you a conspiracy nut job. You are in the club, not because I let you in, not because I invited you, no, you are in the club by the same people that put all of us in the club, your peers that don't like it when you question their reality. That is who put me in the club years ago.
So welcome my friend Colin, nice to have you in the club. It really isn't that bad being in
the club.

[Velokid1]

I can't believe that you see Colin Kellogg as a person to whom questioning conventional thought is something new. Come on, now.

[glasseye]

Darn. A long rebuttal post by me got lost in the intertubes somewhere. Mebbe it's for the best.

The really important question (and it's one that seldom gets asked) is:

Why?



Hint: It's NOT "because they hate our freedoms"

[steve74baywin]

Why?
Hint: It's NOT "because they hate our freedoms"

Yeah, it couldn't be for our freedoms, maybe for our lack of freedom.
Assuming men from Saudi led by Bin Ladin did it, here are some of the things Bin Laden said.

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable­­—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-I­­sraeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—w­­hen America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

terrorism expert Richard E. Rubenstein, Bin Laden has made clear in previous remarks that he is seeking to force a U.S. withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula. He also hopes to destabilize pro-Western regimes in the Middle East and possibly provoke a U.S. military response that will further anger and alienate the Muslim world. "

The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."-bin Laden, May 1998.

We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -bin Laden, Oct. 2001

Many people died when the US bombed Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998. They died directly by the bomb and by the shortage of the medicine it produced.
Just a few possibly reasons for now.

[RussellK]

Yeah right. If Bin Laden had truly given a care about the people of Palestine he'd have figured out a way to spend his fortune raising them from their misery. He could been an icon of hope. Instead he chose to be an icon of death and destruction and the people of Palestine still suffer.