It is false that the conspiracy would require a “few thousand” people. It would actually require the entire population of New York City. People were actually there, in person, who watched the planes hit the towers with their own eyes, as it happened.
Apparently those were missiles projecting holograms, according to one CT.
Since you are not willing or able to post any facts, your beliefs are the only thing we can work with here. And your beliefs are dead wrong.
My two factual contributions so far were:
-
There is a new (Sep 2019) scientific study from the University of Alaska that contradicts NIST findings re WTC7 ( https://youtu.be/Xd7tqpwdlpQ?t=45 )
-
There is a worked out, detailed, sensible alternative theory to the official version, which doesn’t require thousands of conspirators. It just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge.
Also, I haven’t stated any belief one way or the other.
Do you not see how obvious all of the above is to any person in good faith? How unfair your summary is?
Cheers, to all people of good faith everywhere.
Then post it. Just saying “there is one” sounds like bull.
- Already addressed.
- Never presented
And your beliefs are as obvious as a bug splat on a windshield.
My best friend worked at WTC. He was extremely lucky and had not made it in to the building when the planes hit. He witnessed the fires and the collapses from the street below. He took shelter on a city bus when the wall of dust and debris hit.
There were no explosions before or after the planes collided nor the collapse.
It started as a low rumble which got quickly louder and the ground began to shake.
The buildings did not fall straight down.
The debris field spanned several blocks surrounding the site.
All the surrounding building were damaged.
There was some heat, but nothing extreme or enough to create molten steel.
He began working with clean-up and recovery almost immediately.
He won’t talk about that part too much.
???
So… you’re on the fence then?
It’s like talking to pod people. Of course I had presented this fact. I started the thread with it. I restated it in answer to an accusation of not presenting any facts.
As for the worked out theory, I stated as matter of fact that such a reasonable theory exists in answer to someone claiming that any alternative would require thousands of conspirators.
There’s no need for me to present Christopher Bollyn’s work here. He gives plenty of presentations and wrote a few books on the subject.
If you people haven’t read his arguments, maybe you are just not very inquisitive on this topic that seems so dear to your hearts.
Overall, this forum is like a depressing grotesque caricature of rational human reasoning, I’m sad to say.
Do plug away at the same, if you think it’s of any use. Cheers and good-bye.
You mean the way we specifically asked you to present a summary of the theory and a source for it in order to evaluate it?
It’s not our job to make your argument for you, nor to do the homework behind it. You didn’t even manage a YouTube video link on that one. Instead, you claimed that what I said was “provably false”…and then wouldn’t prove it. That’s all on you. We can only conclude that you’ve got nothing.
(Also, of course, you have neatly ignored the rest of the sentence of mine you excerpted, in which the various conspiracy theories remain ludicrously implausible regardless.)
Ah, the usual Truther flounce - “Your refusal to accept extreme hypotheticals supported by deliberate misinterpretations of incorrect data demonstrates that you’re all mindless sheeple! I’m going back to where people blindly accept my unsubstantiated nonsense!”
Frankly, I give it a 3.5 - very neatly written, but no originality or personaility to it. Must do better in future.
What “fact” did you present?
??? It’s not a “matter of fact” and your definition of “reasonable” is flawed.
Yes, there is. You’re the OP, you need to explain **your ** argument clearly and concisely providing evidence, cites, etc… You are to provide the research for others to consider.
This is Great Debates, why post here if you don’t want a debate?
Its not our job to research points you bring up and then refuse to substantiate. Frankly it sounds like you’re trying to generate clicks.
You’ll realize why if you think about it for a moment.
The studio where Spielberg filmed the Moon landings was in the basement of WTC7. More and more people were catching on to the Moon landing hoax, so they had to be sure the studio was totally destroyed before some intrepid patriotic reporter discovered the truth!
It all makes sense if you open your mind.
I’m gonna miss him.
This is, of course, the normal trajectory for 9/11 Truthers on this board. Really, we need to sticky this as it’s a perfect example of the last nearly 20 years on this board with this silly subject. OP comes in, posts some vague, weak bullshit and is Just Asking Questions. Gets no traction because, well, it’s vague, weak bullshit. Is refuted to varying degrees or just laughed at by most posters. Perhaps gets an assist by one or two posters who also act the same way. Gets frustrated by the lack of traction for their loopy CT nonsense and eventually head back out to presumably more fertile places with folks with wider eyes and lower bullshit tolerance.
The good thing is, maybe we are down to just 1 or 2 of these a year at this point, perhaps on or near the anniversary as this one was.
It begs the question of where you think you’ve been that engaged you in ‘rational human reasoning’, or exactly what your definition is. Of course, this thread wasn’t the effort this board has given in the past wrt debunking the ridiculous…we are basically burned out on this subject and I think everyone (me for sure) were going through the motions. But then, your OP was weaker than most as you didn’t really do much to foster a debate, didn’t provide cited and quoted evidence that supports points you were making. You basically did a drive by OP and told folks to go read some books or watch some videos and get back to you. Of course, you basically just joined the board, so you don’t, perhaps, know better, but that’s not how debate or ‘rational human reasoning’ works. You’d have been better off putting this in the MPSIMS forum, or perhaps IMHO though, frankly, it’s weak even for that.
At any rate, thanks for playing The Straight Dope video game. We would have some lovely parting gifts for you, but, frankly, you don’t even qualify for the ceramic dog…
Just a comment on this “fact”: Vaporization is exactly what the fuel needs to burn. If you’ve ever seen fuel - gasoline, kerosene, Jet A - burn in an open container, the liquid itself does *not *burn; it’s the vapor *above *the liquid where sufficient oxygen has blended to make the flammable mixture.
The atomization of the fuel from the impact would have helped the burning, not hindered it.
Not to mention that the sound of jumpers’ bodies hitting pavement has been described as “the popping of wet paper bags”.
I think the more relevant thing is that there almost certainly WERE actual explosions. I seriously don’t know what most of these 9/11 Truther types think are in buildings, but it’s like they can’t picture things like cleaning solvents or other highly flammable and potentially explosive chemicals that are basically in every office and building out there. Not to mention things like paint and paint thinner, which were part of ongoing renovations that are mentioned often in conjunction with supposed black operations to implant sooper dooper high tech micro-nano-termite anti-matter charges throughout the building. It’s like on the one hand they talk about it, but the implications of that never cross their mind.
I think most of the ‘explosions’ folks heard were just what Grim Render said there…basically, when stressed concrete gives way, it’s going to be pretty spectacular, especially under the kinds of loads we are talking about. I saw a demo once of a hydraulic machine doing a variety of stressed concrete failure tests (basically squishing a concrete cylinder made of different types and cures of concrete with different or no reinforcement materials until it fails), and I can tell you that hearing protection was not only encouraged but absolutely required…as was being in a protected room while the test happened. The concrete exploded, like a really, really loud rifle report or the firing of something like a cannon. It was intense. And that was just a small concrete cylinder. Just one. I can imagine what a whole floor of such supports being crushed would sound like.
And, of course, there were very large diesel storage bunkers on multiple floors in each of those buildings. They were for backup power generators that various groups were using (there were also, IIRC, at least 3 building UPS systems with high voltage capacitors and batteries as well).
Lacks intrigue, novelty and sub-plot. I give it 2.5 out of 10 for the flammable pyrotechnics. Would not watch.
- Let’s rephrase this. An organization whose goal is to promote conspiracy theories paid three engineers (two engineers specializing in bridges, and one specializing in tunnels), to support their claims that building did not collapse like NIST said it did. The engineers wrote a non-peer reviewed white paper criticizing the NIST model and providing a simulation that showed the buildings not collapsing the way it aw observed to have done.
So we have two competing models. One developed by a commission of civil engineers specializing in collapsing buildings, that has been largely accepted by the engineering community, and a second developed by 3 engineers chosen from around the world, none of whom specialize in sky scrapers, who developed a model matching the results they were paid to find. Now all models require certain assumptions about starting conditions and force interactions, and no model is perfect. Depending on those assumptions you get different answers. Now a priori I have no idea which model has the correct assumptions it could be that NIST was right, it could be that the Hulsey model is right and NIST is wrong, or it could be that the Hulsey is right that NIST and wrong, but that the Hulsey model is also wrong. The real test of a model is how well it confirms with observed reality, and in this case observed reality was Building 7 collapsing. So I’m going to go out on a limb and say whether or or not there were problems with the NIST model the Hulsey model is wrong. When your model of aerodynamics says that Bumble bees can’t fly. Then the conclusions shouldn’t be that bumble bees don’t fly, or bumble bees are magic, it should be that there is something wrong with your model.
- I agree that there might be an alternative theory to the official version, which just requires a few tens of people placed in key positions, some with partial knowledge. But as to it being worked out, detailed or sensible I’m going to need some convincing. Please feel free to outline it here. If it requires a whole book to explain then I’m betting Occam’s razor will cut it to shreds.