Many 9/11 conspiracy theories revolve around explosions that were seen and heard in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Despite scientific investigations that have explained the processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some conspiracy theorists suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" — that explosives had been implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what really brought them down.
Now a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific explanation for the mystery booms, and says his model of the Twin Towers collapse leaves no room for conspiracies. "My model explains all the observed features on 11th September: the explosions, molten metal coming out of the window, the time passing between the crash and the collapse, the fact that the explosions took place in a floor below the place it was burning, and the rapid collapse," Christen Simensen of SINTEF, a research organization in Norway, told Life's Little Mysteries.
There's excellent material in the article regarding Building 7's collapse, too. It's all very interesting and stands strong in contradiction to the "Roughly 1,600 architects and structural engineers across the country, who have banded together in a group called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.." I wonder how those 1600 think anything like a cover-up that huge and complicated and important could be kept QUIET :-)
You ever had any doubts?
z
46 comments:
"I wonder how those 1600 think anything like a cover-up that huge and complicated and important could be kept QUIET"
Probably the same way the Manhattan project was kept quiet.
Soapster....apples and oranges.
Manhattan was during war time and for national security.
Do you believe that American and United conspired to have 4 aircraft with crews and passengers sacrificed to some insane conspiracy? That the pilots were involved and committed to suicide by piloting their planes into buildings?
Did you not hear the ATC transcripts from the cockpits of two of those airliners?
"Apples and Oranges."
Here we go....
"Do you believe that American and United conspired to have 4 aircraft with crews and passengers sacrificed to some insane conspiracy? That the pilots were involved and committed to suicide by piloting their planes into buildings?"
Not sure what I believe as we're still working on the details. I think it's more appropriate for me to say I know what I don't believe.
"Did you not hear the ATC transcripts from the cockpits of two of those airliners?"
Yeah! I also heard those recordings of the phone calls that were made from some thousands of feet in altitude at cruising speed. Man I wish I had that kind of cell coverage.
No...we won't go all the way Soapy.
" Man I wish I had that kind of cell coverage."
The majority of those calls were made by the GTE installed air phones on the planes.
Secondly...as a commercial pilot myself ( and recently retired ) my personal cell phone worked fine below around 5,000 to 10,000MSL. I'd get dial tone, beeps from incoming messages and lists of missed calls. But I was usually too busy to return calls until we landed.
I think the micro waves work just fine whether horizontally or vertically with that distance from cell towers.
And speed has nothing to do with it.
There are two quotes which I always remind myself of whenever the subject of 9/11 comes up.
"Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture." - Allen Ginsberg
"Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." - F.A. Hayek
You believe your "experts". I'll believe mine.
Divine has perfectly stated the problem.
Each side has their experts, who are typically used to back up their preconceived ideas.
That is how it is with conspiracy theories.
There will always be some who question whatever supposed evidence is brought forth because they do not like the view from the other side.
The Truthers, The Birthers, global warming, the lone gunman, John Wilkes Booth... pick one.
At the root is a skepticism about an outcome that individuals either cannot, or will not accept.
We are all guilty of this.
Hey Z. You know those five little words over there ------>>>> you attribute to Mr. Z? There are times that your commenters make my eyes bleed.
Soapster is a perfect example of why it is futile to argue with conspiracy nuts.
First of all, Osama and AQ said they were going to do this and then they did it. Afterward, they took credit for it. I take them at their word.
Secondly, if someone wanted to bring down some buildings for whatever reason, going through this elaborate plan of hijacking planes, etc is just too complicated.
You wanna blow them up? Pack them with explosives and blow them up! Why add in the extra spectacular plane collisions and involve way more people. Simply blow the buildings up and blame the terrorists. After all, they tried to do that back in 1993, so it would be a simple plan and completely credible.
But no, it's more fun cooking up Roadrunner - Wiley Coyote schemes.
Here's my complete answer to the barking tards who insist 911 was an inside job:
conspiracy nation
I also highly recommend:
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
911 Myths Wiki
Bottom line:
Anything is possible, but the burden of proof is on those nutballs making the accusations. So far, nothing credible has come from the Troofer Kook Kamp.
I have no doubt that Osama bin Laden planted explosives in the WTC as a backup plan in case the planes missed... ;)
"Soapster is a perfect example of why it is futile to argue with conspiracy nuts."
Actually Silverfiddle the reason why it is futile is two-fold. On the one hand, it is not likely that one could have a civil debate or discussion with another individual (an adult?) who resorts to such pet names as "barking tards".
Secondly, my opinion on the matter is not closed whereas it appears that yours is.
If only the conspiracy fools knew just how hot jet fuel burned.
I watched a KC-135 ,with my friend who was crew chief, crash and burn on Okinawa . The wheels clipped the fence at the end of the run way due to the humidity and weight.
It crashed on top of a Jeepney (taxi). There was absolutely nothing left of the Jeepney, the fence or the aircraft. No traces of the crew or the passengers in the taxi were found until the entire site had been sifted. The airframe was unrecognizable and the remains of the jeep were incinerated.
The heat was so fierce that even the emergency units could not get close enough to spray foam on the AC.
I watched it in horror just as I watched,in horror. the twin towers fall and could only imagine the intense heat that must have been created.
I have no doubt that Osama bin Laden planted explosives in the WTC as a backup plan in case the planes missed... ;)
----------
Come on, Farmer, it was the State Dept. Haven't you watched the "Loose Change" series?
Soapster might lend you his copy.
Soapser: I said that there are many possibilities, but so far the hooting loonies have provided nothing credible.
Dave said: " Each side has their experts, who are typically used to back up their preconceived ideas."
That is exactly what happens to many of the participants. However, when you take a critical look at something like the twin towers attack, pretty much everything can be explained. Anything not explained can usually be revealed after painstaking investigations.
As an engineer, what happened physically is perfectly logical to me. The big stuff is explainable, and anything not understood will probably be figured out, later.
It is not true experts opinions are always correct. There are studies that show expert opinion is correct less than 50% of the time. It's kind of like mutual fund managers not being able to do better than random processes in stock selection.
"You ever had any doubts?z"
No Z, I've never had any doubts.
Why some people always want to find a way for the US to be involved in this attack, is beyond me.
In light of the attempt by terrorists to blow them up in 1993,
should be enough to convince anyone they wanted to finish the job!
It's quite difficult to offer up anything other than speculation when others "...control the media, the images,..." [not to mention the evidence].
9/11 presents an interesting study in human behavior and human action as we can clearly witness in the commentary thus far.
It is classic herd mentality which is completely indicative of American culture and society. It plays out in virtually every school in America. Those who tend to go against the grain, question or challenge traditional orthodoxy are deemed "kooky", "loony", "weird".
When Al Gore says the case is closed and global warming is entirely caused by man's actions, do you question it? Do you challenge that notion?
If you do (and as well you should) one would think you'd have the courtesy towards those who harbor skeptism about the events of 9/11.
I don't for one minute believe the guys behind Loose Change actually believe one bit in their theory. When their "theories" are disproven, they change the theory or eliminate the section that has been exposed as lies.
Dylan Avery is just a morally corrupt hack who delights in making fools out of those who wouldn't bother to investigate for themselves all of the inaccuracies and outright lies he spews.
Z - This is an invitation to you and your commenters to find out why I am 'a bit strange.'
Check it out~ :=)
Soapster:
No offense against you, I'm sure you're just repeating what you heard others say, but this is an ignorant statement:
"Yeah! I also heard those recordings of the phone calls that were made from some thousands of feet in altitude at cruising speed. Man I wish I had that kind of cell coverage."
The average cell phone tower's range is around 5 miles depending on various circumstances. Free-space propagation unimpeded by ground clutter, such as between a plane in the air and the tower is the ideal, so your coverage from a plane would actually on average be better.
Again, it could have been an inside job, and McCain could really have been a manchurian candidate, but I've seen nothing credible, and ignorant statements like the above one just discredits those who wish to be taken seriously.
When Al Gore says the case is closed and global warming is entirely caused by man's actions, do you question it? Do you challenge that notion?
---------------
Yes, unlike yourself who completely rejects any adverse theory.
You know the truth, right? The fact that normals don't bother with your conspiracy beliefs or your idiotic economic beliefs is sufficient to call them close minded?
Stop boxing outside your weight. Your beliefs have been rejected after due consideration for good reason.
The towers may very well have a 5 mile range but cellphone reception contectivity tests have been done numerous times since 9/11 and those findings had pretty high failure rates.
What's more, I'm not aware that those particular tests used 2001 cell phone technology either. Certainly the technologies of cell phones have come along way in 10 years.
Further, while the cellphone towers might have a range of 5 miles, a cellphone's signal is going to be compromised by the interior conditions of the airplanes cabin as well as the construction of the plane itself which acts as a shield against the signal. If said callers had window seats perhaps a case could be made.
"When Al Gore says the case is closed and global warming is entirely caused by man's actions, do you question it? Do you challenge that notion?
---------------
Yes, unlike yourself who completely rejects any adverse theory.
You know the truth, right?"
Are you feeling okay Ducky? Is your knee jerk reaction so imbedded into your psyche that you don't even bother to read and process information?
What I was driving at is that I too question Al Gore's protestations. And why?? Not because I "know the truth" as you suggest but because I do not know the truth. I am in search of the truth. And, until my questions are sufficiently resolved by myself I will continue to search for the truth because that is how one acquires knowledge with which they can navigate the world.
Further, I was pointing out that while some question Al Gore's man made global warming claims, they do not seem willing to question the "official" story of 9/11. This is of course fine to do. What I take umbrage with however is that would be critical of someone else who does.
Go have a beer or something and relax.
To clarify, and or the record Ducky, I'm not rejecting any theory with respect to 9/11.
I'm just not entirely sold on the "official" one.
On the one hand, it is not likely that one could have a civil debate or discussion with another individual (an adult?) who resorts to such pet names as "barking tards".
I'd simply ask the 9/11 troofer to be honest enough to admit that he's an imbecile before proceeding.
Does anyone really think that America would not have gone to war against al-Qaeda if somehow the WTC towers managed to remain standing after being hit with two airliners and set on fire?
I see beamish is still invoking the argument from intimidation at seemingly every turn.
I see beamish is still invoking the argument from intimidation at seemingly every turn.
I'm sorry, did you make an argument to refute, or display your lack of intelligence?
There is a difference.
Soapster; right, and the media's just the same as it was then, right? :-)
Imp; apples and oranges, indeed.
Dave, so you don't believe in posting something that shows the side of non conspiracy because we all have 'sides'?
Rita, I loved that comment ...yes, you're right.
SF..thanks for those; excellent info.
Joe, very good :-)
\
Sue...check what out?
Bob, there's also the very thought that our gov't could have killed that many people ...
read SF's comments; there were easier ways, right?
S.F.
The average cell phone tower's range is around 5 miles depending on various circumstances. Free-space propagation unimpeded by ground clutter, such as between a plane in the air and the tower is the ideal, so your coverage from a plane would actually on average be better.
As a HAM radio operator and I believe any HAM operator will tell you that the higher one goes with a transceiver the more efficiently it will operate.
Going higher more or less has the effect of adding output power, WHY? there isn't the clutter in the sky as there is while on the ground.
Airlines, after all these years, still operate on the AM bands in the 120 mhz zone. AM in not the most efficient band that one could operate on but, the altitude aircraft flies, compensates for the inefficiencies and ground clutter.
It's no big mystery, soapster.
In Florida, because it is so flat, I've been able to work a station on the other side of the state with 2 watts on uhf.....no clutter in the way.
Scotty is right. SilverFiddle is right. The 9/11 phone calls from those airplanes can propagate for
hundreds of miles.
How do I know? Besides being a Ham Radio Operator since age 15, I am also a communications engineer, and a former member of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society where most of the members were the designers of those cell systems, and the GTE airphone system.
I also sold antenna systems to the cellular industry for years when I was a salesman and a sales manager for the then existing Andrew Corporation, manufacturer of antennas and transmission lines.
In addition friends of mine who were private pilots would take cell phones with them to furnish a backup communications. The cell companies don't like that because a cell phone at 10,000 feet can get into cell sites a hundred or more miles around.
So, cut out the crap about cell phone systems not being able to carry aircraft traffic as they fly over dozens of cell sites per hour. They talk too damned good, and not only is that a problem for the cell system, it's also a fact.
I
"AM bands in the 120 mhz zone."
Yup...actually from about 108.9 up to 137 with 108.9 to 117.9 for nav and from 118 to 137 from voice com.
Thanks.
Z, I don't believe I said that, or even intimated it.
I merely pointed out how Divine's comment, that "you believe your experts and I'll believe mine" illustrates the divide when things come to events that a majority of people believe are beyond the conspiracy pale.
How do we, as a people, make a decision that what a minority of people choose to believe is a decision to choose to believe in despite the facts are in evidence?
And who has the burden of proof for the minority view? Is it incumbent on those challenging orthodoxy to provide real proof, or is it sufficient for that minority to continually raise questions?
For instance, in the Kennedy Assassination, at what point did we, or do we write off the multiple gunmen theory as false, and move on, in spite of the persistence of a small minority of disbelievers.
The JFK assassination is fairly easy to figure out.
The son of America's most pro-Hitler diplomat went to Berlin, shook his fist at Russia and screamed that he was a jelly doughnut in German, so they got Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot him before he went total nuts.
Dave, I believe that some conspiracies are 'louder', depending on if the mainstream media likes them or not; or if it's from a bunch who likes to believe America's at fault for most of the world's evils.
As there are certainly tons of AMericans who think what happened on 9/11 is what we could see happened on 9/11, there are people who fit the above and seem to get the big coverage; a squeaky wheel gets more oil, right? (Or something like that!?)
SO, it was refreshing to read about this, since I"d just watched the Truthers video a friend sent the other day and it sounds pretty compelling if you want to believe that stuff.
I was at a school today where a kid had told me last week that he thought the buildings came down from explosives, not the planes....thankfully, the other students had rolled their eyes at him, which cheered ME up.
Today, I ran into Jerrod at the school and told him about this article and I was cheered that he wasn't resistant to reading it, tho I hadn't brought it, not knowing I'd see him. Apparently, his folks thrive on the WE DID IT theory of 9/11 and it was nice to see a kid open minded about the more mainstream opinion, or I think it is, anyway.
Dave, I rambled above cuz I have to dart off to El Cholo.....
I DID have your recommended Pastrami at Izzy's for lunch MOnday and it was DElicious! Thanks for the recommendation!
Z - My new blog.
By clicking on my name.
Bob: Please stop confusing the conspiracy theorists with facts. It just gets in the way of their preconcieved notions that America is the evil perpetrator, the landing on the moon was fake, the crop circles are created by aliens and....makes me have to actually turn on the TV for my entertainment versus reading the kookoo ideas they dream up next.
Rita, Thanks for your confidence. I actually like to read about conspiracy theories because sometimes they can work out to be accurate.
But, when the conspiracy guys keep ignoring facts, it becomes disconcerting, and somebody has to bring some reality back into the discussion.
Having said that, I think conspiracy theories can be useful.
1. It keeps certain people off the streets where they can do real damage.
2. The conspiracy guys give us continuing entertainment.
3. Sometimes, they are correct in part, if not completely.
There are some entertaining radio shows about conspiracy theories. Michael Medved usually devotes one day a week to conspiracy theories, and entertains all comers. Coast-To-Coase Am, an all night radio show, specializes in the weird and conspiracy stuff. You need to be an insomniac to listen to that one.
Have a great weekend.
Exactly why we can not take people such as Ron Paul seriously. He poses a threat to the sanity of the USA ...
Even though this thread has seemingly run its course, I had to satisfy my inner drive to support skepticism, truth, justice and the American Way.
Dave said: "The Truthers, The Birthers, global warming, the lone gunman, John Wilkes Booth... pick one. "
I don't think Dave meant all the above situations were equal. The Truthers and the Birthers run around without the benefit of established fact. The Kennedy and Lincoln controversies suffer because not all facts are known, and have become shrouded in history.
Climate change/global warming can be seen as a conspiracy or a perfect storm of misinformation and misguided politics.
The CO2 scare started with the same crowd that screamed about a new ice age in the 1970, and who bought into the ridiculous idea put forth by Paul Erhlich's "The Population Bomb". John Holdren, currently Obama's personal science advisor, was one of those crackpots, even co-authoring a book with the Erhlichs. You can't make this stuff up.
The 1988 Senate hearings organized by Senator Wirth has a very interesting story.The day the committee held hearings featuring the testimonmy of Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA Godard Institute of Space Studies.
That day, the air contitioners in the Senate hearing room were turned off, and the windows were raised the night before to allow the cold air to escape into the hot Washington summer morning. Is this a conspiracy, or a staged bit of theater to make some Senators, scientists, and reporters sweat? Cute.
Birthers and Truthers don't have their own scientific conventions where real, peer reviewed scientific papers are presented. Nor do are they faced with a cadre of opposing scientists doing their best to keep skeptic views from being published as we see in the climate science arena.
All this is documented with the revelation of the Climate Gate emails. Steve Mosher, an actual participant on the skeptic side, wrote the definitive description of these pirated emails from the citadel of phony climate science, The Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University.
Is this a conspiracy, or just a bunch of like-minded guys acting independently to suppress opposing views, thwart legal freedom of information requests, and eliminate evidence of their skullduggery.
When the global warmers are challenged to present scientific proof of the coming cataclysms caused by CO2, they become suspiciously combative. They usually prefer to go the Ad Hominem route than discuss the facts.
The whole issue has boiled down to the situation that the facts are on the side of the skeptics, but the alarmists will probably win the war because the crackpots are so entrenched in the government and the media, that the truth will not be out until we have been bilked for Trillion$ of Dollars.
I wouldn't call myself a birther but anybody who has really delved into the facts knows that there is something very very wrong with the facts behind Obama's birth.
It's almost laughable and, had we a really honest mainstream media, and a rightwing media unafraid to delve, we'd know.
That's all I'll say; I never for a second believed he was born anywhere but here, but the more I see evidence with computer letters, fonts, the difference in birth certificates from other kids born that day in Hawaii, the fact that the certificate was locked up (highly irregular and nobody ASKS?)
And, every single case, even by Democrat PHilip Berg, was dismissed before it got off the ground.
Let's not fool ourselves that we're living in a truly free country, folks. This is so easily provable and it hasn't been......not yet.
For me, the "birther" issue isn't whether or not Obama was born in America (he was) but whether or not he lost his American citizenship when his family moved him to Indonesia and if he did if he was legally repatriated.
Given that it seems he took advantage of foreign student grants when he went to college at Occidental, it seems the repatriation question is unanswered.
But born in America, sure. Obama was definitely born in Hawaii.
" Obama was definitely born in Hawaii."
Really? Then why not the release of the "original" COLB? Then why the obvious attempts to compile a forgery released in response to Trumps challenge?
Too many professionals with experience in document forensics ( like Dan Rathers BushGate fiasco ) have disputed the authenticity of that released Certificate.
Then...the constant withholding of any and all school, health, social, senate, travel, dissertations...records?
Really? Then why not the release of the "original" COLB? Then why the obvious attempts to compile a forgery released in response to Trumps challenge?
I'm not convinced that the COLB document recently released after the noise Donald Trump made is a "forgery."
I do think the fact that his grandparents listed his birth in Hawaiian newspapers is evidence enough that he was born in Hawaii well before there was any doubt that he was.
The biggest proof for me that Obama was born in Hawaii is that Hillary Clinton gave up pursuing this conspiracy theory when it was obviously useless to her efforts to get the Democratic Party nomination.
Too many professionals with experience in document forensics ( like Dan Rathers BushGate fiasco ) have disputed the authenticity of that released Certificate.
I think the document was released as a Adobe pdf scanned with character recognition software to create seperate page elements to cynically keep the conspiracy theorists frothing. It would be the same and look the same if they had simply photo-copied it or photographed it.
Then...the constant withholding of any and all school, health, social, senate, travel, dissertations...records?
That's definitely a concern about who exactly Barack Obama is and what he believes, but not a proof that he was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii.
Beamish, then you haven't seen the copies of the birth cert. shown, step by step, by the experts after that last cert. was produced when Trump went nuts and wouldn't let it go ...fonts that don't work, etc.
It's really quite something......
Post a Comment