I was certain they were holographic projections to hide the fact that these were actually cruise missiles.
Whatever happened to the “orbs” argument? That was my favorite of them all. THE ORBS!!!
No one said a damn thing? If you’re talking about NSA monitoring, there have been reports and people complaining about it since at least the early 2000s and late 1990s. See the Wikipedia for “ECHELON” (public disclosures section), Hepting v. AT&T, and more. Just because most people chose willful ignorance prior to Snowden doesn’t mean nobody said anything.
No, you were not!
Wait–is that the sound of a hologram passing over my head?
I’m amused (or is that sickened?) by the no-planers, who believe that Hollywood special effects people save their best work, not for next summer’s blockbusters, but for this conspiracy. And have no explanation for the whereabouts of the so-called passengers that isn’t monstrous, obscene, and totally insensitive to their families, who are all in on the conspiracy.
The JFK conspiracies are easier to swallow because there were so many powerful people who wouldn’t mind him being dead.
SDMB and Science: You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Do not come to the SDMB looking for scientific analyses, mainly because most of its members are clueless in that regard. For example, ask a SDMB member “What is an experimental control”, “What is a promoter and an enhancer”, or “What is the difference between a cistron and a gene” and you’ll get all sorts of wild, inaccurate answers based on one’s personal interpretation of an Wikipedia article. You’d likely find better commentary regarding science (and its phenomenon) at Stormfront than here. Trust me. What you’ll find here are people who have an excellent grasp of the English language and a firm, if not superior, grasp of legal analyses, in fact, it’s legal analysis here is often top notch. Attempt to confine your questions to legal questions and you’ll find this place is a treasure trove of a resource.
- Honesty
oops
Could be worse - we could be as scientifically illiterate as whoever made that godawful AE911Truth slideshow.
I, and many of the other professional scientists who post here, am perfectly capable of providing correct answers to those and many other similar questions.
Perhaps you would like to point out exactly where, in this thread, Dopers have been offering incorrect scientific analyses, rather than just offering a blanket dismissal of any and all scientifically-based posts. For bonus points, you could even bother to explain exactly WHY you think they’re wrong. And, you know, actually contribute.
The surrounding paragraph makes this suggestion sound unappealing.
It was so brave, standing there among the chaos and confusion of that bright, sunny Tuesday. America’s heart went out to that small building, proudly defying all the horror surrounding it.
When it collapsed, it was as if a little bit in all of us fell apart that day.
May WTC7 forever be in our memories… 
What is the point of all of this?
In 1940 it was possible to build a 54 foot, 1:200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in FOUR MONTHS in a wind tunnel that behaved like the bridge due to the wind. It was built at the University of Washington.
But in TWELVE YEARS we do not have a physical model of the north tower that could collapse like the real building.
Now if it is physically possible then why can’t that be done? But how can such a model even be built if we do not have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level?
Physics trumps conspiracies. The nation that put men on the Moon should be able to demonstrate the physics.
psik
Did the bridge model collapse like the actual bridge or did it merely sway like the T-N bridge?
And we are not going too have one. Things this size simply do. not. scale. up.
It is not physically possible. Not without a total rebuild which would be needessy costly and pointless.
Now arriving on a single track…
They have, just not to the satisfaction of people who will not be satisfied.
The model was not tested to destruction. It was built before the real bridge collapsed. It was being used to determine what could be done to stop the oscillation of the real bridge. But before some of the ideas could be implemented the oscillation of the real bridge got so bad that it destroyed itself.
The cases are not identical but they are similar in that they are about large structural engineering projects.
This is about scaling down not up. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a demonstration that is can be scaled down.
This is the problem with BELIEVERS. They operate from the assumption that what the believe cannot be proven wrong.
Are you saying that an accurate model can be made without accurate data. So we are stuck with your circular logic. It can’t be done because it can’t be done. For whatever excuses you want to come up with.
psik
I’ve no idea what this alleged fact would prove, if it were true, beyond the fact that nobody’s bothered to do it.
If you would like to provide the funding, I’ll have a scale model built of the Twin Towers that will collapse into its own footprint.
How can you make an accurate scale model without knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. It is not just a matter of a scale model that looks like the north tower.
The top down collapse would involve the conservation of momentum. Mass impacting mass.
psik
So we’re back to that tired(and oft disproved) excuse of yours that, until we come up with a scaled down model that anyone with the proper engineering background and a lick of sense knows just can’t be built, you’re free to make nonsensical speculations until the cows come home?
Oh, joy.
Forget it, Czarcasm. It’s Crazytown.
What does that tell you about scaling things? The model probably would never have collapsed. The real bridge did. The damage issue and materials did not scale.
Under completely different situations.
Read for comprehension, when I say things do not scale up I mean that your models will simply not behave in the same manner as the full scale item.
Funny how the BELIEVERS consist of pretty much every Structural, Material, Mechanical Engineer in not only the US but the world?
I’m saying that your failure to acquire nit-picking data when all you did was whined about is not an indication of anything relevant.
Right, because if people don’t know some narrow and vertically focused terms, they don’t know ‘science’, right? 
BTW, I’m not a scientists (or a chemist or biologist), and I know what all of those terms mean, generally anyway (I doubt very much that most of this board doesn’t know what that first one is). The difference between you and I (aside from your fixations) is that I know that I can trot out some narrow and vertically focused terms in my own specialty and you and others on this board who aren’t specialists in my field won’t know what they mean, or they will only have a general idea what they would mean…but I wouldn’t take this a proof of anything except that I’m a network engineer and you and others, well, aren’t. Has nothing to do with a lack of science BACKGROUND or science fundamentals, and more to do with the fact people are vertically specialized, and so the buzzword bingo shifts with that specialization.
Er, no…I’m thinking that would be a really bad idea.
There are these buildings called skyscrapers. The first level of a 110 story building MUST be strong enough to support the weight of 109 levels. Obviously every level further up must support one level less of weight. But it is the steel that must support that weight. And that does not even count the strength necessary to resist the wind. The NIST can’t even tell us the total weight of the concrete though they did it for the steel.
I bet designers cannot even make good cost estimates to propose the project without figuring this out reasonably well.
Claiming this is unimportant is complete nonsense. The top 13% by height of any skyscraper should be the lightest and weakest portion of that height, so its falling and destroying everything below in less than triple free fall time should present a problem.
But then after 12 years if it were PROVEN that it could not happen then a lot of people claiming to be intelligent, rational and scientific would look pretty silly. I guess we need for it to not be tested. 
psik