|HarrietTubmanPI - 2013-01-09 |
There are so many problems with this argument:
1. A building collapse for a highrise will look similar to a controlled demolition. It won't just lean over. A building of that size will go straight down.
2. They would have had a very short time to create a controlled demolition. It takes a long time to plan and execute a controlled demolition. They would have either built the building already with explosives inside (why) or would have had to put in explosives after the twin towers fell.
3. Most of these interviews just cast doubt and offer no evidence themselves. They suggest that evidence was tampered with, missing, or removed, but because of this you cannot make a conclusion. If the evidence is not there to support your conclusion, you cannot make up that conclusion. Absence of evidence means you can invent any conclusion you want.
4. Most of these 'experts' are not physicists. Architects can build buildings, but know nothing about their collapse. They know nothing about explosives and controlled demolitions.
5. Video clearly shows that the collapse began with one of the columns towards the middle. This agrees with the NIST report, and if that column went the rest of the building would have gone.
6. WTC7 was heavily damaged by falling debris. Even if the outside looked 'lightly damaged', it does not mean that heavier debris fell on top of the building thus weakening the structure.
7. Just because other buildings didn't collapse by fire doesn't mean this building could not. Also, it wasn't fire alone. WTC1, 2, and 7 both were structurally compromised, and were also on fire.
8. Nothing will satisfy the conspiracy theorists. Even smart scientists can become blinded by a conclusion they desperately want to be true. That is why evidence outweighs opinion, and consensus outweighs this small number of 'experts'.
Correction, item 6, "It does not mean that heavier debris did not fall on top of the building"
number 3 is the most salient point to me...even if all of the information presented is completely legitimate, it disproves something but proves nothing
and number 8 is why this bullshit is a complete waste of time
Rodents of Unusual Size
Just curious, why didn't the 9/11 Commission address Building 7 at all? They offered absolutely no explanation for its fall.
Also, I find it really odd Building 7 fell given the fact that it was not hit by planes.
I think the problem with the Truther movement is they want to believe the entire government was complicit in the explosions.
My own take is that it is something far more complicated. Either terrorists did plant bombs and had help, and they found out who it was and didn't want it to get out, so they killed everyone involved covertly, or possibly something akin to this.
The biggest problem here is that these are architects and engineers with backgrounds that say to me they are worth listening to. For the longest time I dismissed the Truther movement as paranoid. I don't think Bush necessarily knew it was going to happen, but that doesn't mean there weren't a few people that did know. It doesn't take an entire government for a conspiracy to occur. That's the problem. Alex Jones and his like try to convince people of the vaaaaast Illuminati/Club of Rome/etc rich elite groups that plot for world takeover.
The truth is probably something a lot more mundane, but I would prefer that you judge this based on the science they are talking about. I think people tend to want to dismiss this shit because TRUTHERS but these people are scientists. I was hoping you guys wouldn't leap to conclusions about this because these people are not making the leaps of logic the Truther movement is.
rous, this is foolish
there is no evidence for any of that and no government could ever cover that evidence up
perhaps the full explanation is complex and not fully understood but that proves nothing
this is a manipulative film full of ill-informed opinions and biased conclusions, catered to an audience of simpletons who already made up their minds
but I suspect that this post is a complete waste of time so fuck it think whatever you want
Rodents of Unusual Size
It's not, but I'm truly confused about Building 7 and what could possibly cause it to collapse in the way that it did. Even if there was no government conspiracy, is it possible the terrorists in Al Qaeda managed to plant bombs in the buildings themselves? The way it collapsed was quick. If the fires were on the top floors how did that create the amount of physical pressure that caused it to fall so quickly? How did the bottom floor collapse uniformly?
How experienced are you in the field of building demolition?
Do bear in mind that building 7 had more going on with it than some kids on the roof setting off fireworks irresponsibly. Enough to lead to its collapse? Well I'm no expert either, but an overwhelming number of credible experts seem to be content with the conventional explanation, so maybe there's no conspiracy with WTC 7.
The God of Biscuits
Really disappointed ROUS.
Check out http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
"these people are scientists"
Scientists have also told us cigarettes are good for you and DDT is harmless. Scientists Not all scientists are good scientists (architects and engineers are neither, they aren't scientists at all). There are a lot of shitty (or paid off or both) scientists out there.
A lot of "creation scientists" real are scientists, too. Doesn't make them right.
Good grief ROUS. No plane hit WTC7. However a lot of the twin towers did, and there was a fire that was out of control, both of which weakened the building. One main column started to fail, and the rest of the building went.
You are smarter than this.
Wake up sheeple!
9/11 was an inside job
Ron Paul 2012!
When 9 out of 10 doctors recommend something, that means the one who doesn't is the best and wisest doctor. That's just common sense!
|Ursa_minor - 2013-01-09 |
There are a million shady things about 9/11.
Two buildings falling because two 550 thousand pound objects full of fuel traveling at 400 miles an hour hit them is not one of those things. Steel does not have to melt to fail structurally.
This is so distracting from the real issue.
There might be a secret way to make steel softer using a fire somehow. I once saw a blacksmith at Colonial Williamsburg hammer a steel bar into a horseshoe, using a fire. And it seems *someone* planted fire (and possibly hammers) in the WTC towers prior to their collapse. Plus, 14 people named "Smith" died in the WTC collapse. I didn't make this up, these are honest-to-god facts. Puzzling evidence indeed.
|Zoot42 - 2013-01-09 |
Haw haw haw! ROUS you have either gone way over the deep end or are trolling. I was going to write some tl;dr things about this but thankfully Harriet beat me to it. Also LOL@ the "no truther bullshit" thing when you can click the video to go to the YouTube page where it is hosted by ae911truth. At the end it credits the loose change "documentary" and other crazy bullshit.
|Bort - 2013-01-09 |
When I was a kid, Leonard Nimoy hosted "In Search Of ...". It was an awesome investigative show about the unexplained; complete bullshit, but it at least spoke to a kid's imagination. What made it work was that they would present enough information about the week's topic to make it seem like an intriguing puzzle or phenomenon, but withhold the details that would suggest a mundane explanation. Still, the topics were fun.
So five stars for this video making me think of "In Search Of ...", minus one star for a lack of Bigfoot. And another for no Loch Ness Monster. And another no Kirlian photography. And one more for no Uri Geller bending spoons with his mind.
|Old_Zircon - 2013-01-09 |
Is this architects for 9/11 truth? I have a friend who's into those guys. He also believe in UFOs. So there you go.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|