Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[delphi_ote]

so if no investigation was done yet, why would he change his views in 10 days?

I can't imagine.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Maybe you should've read the articles.

 

[Hutch]

Delphi, to add to that, earlier today thesyntaxhera quote a source that may bear repeating about now:

Here is an interesting Nova chat with some CT rebuttals laced throughout in red.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...va_eagar1.html


NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

Bolding and Italics above mine.


So some engineers were surprised, but engineers who DESIGNED THAT TYPE OF BUILDING were not surprised.

Unless Mr. Romero designed these type of buildings (which based on his career choice I would say was unlikely), then he might well have been surprised--but he listened to the other opinions, came to an informed conclusion, and revised his original conclusion based on the evidence.

As indeed, I think most in this thread have done.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I can't imagine.

Yeah thats hard for you it seems.

Maybe you should've read the articles.

I did, I'm still curious hence the question. The official report doesn't say that the

intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

we just covered this.

So in 10 days this fellow looked at some video and was convinced by his peers based on the same video that what he thought was a demolition was actually speculation not supported by the eventual FEMA report...that the jet fuel weakened the steel. Why would these guys draw any conclusions before the actual investigation? The case wasn't under way untl 144 days later.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Delphi, to add to that, earlier today thesyntaxhera quote a source that may bear repeating about now:





Bolding and Italics above mine.


So some engineers were surprised, but engineers who DESIGNED THAT TYPE OF BUILDING were not surprised.

Unless Mr. Romero designed these type of buildings (which based on his career choice I would say was unlikely), then he might well have been surprised--but he listened to the other opinions, came to an informed conclusion, and revised his original conclusion based on the evidence.

As indeed, I think most in this thread have done.

The designer of the building claims it was made to withstand mutiple 707's which are of close size and fuel capacity.

 

[Belz...]

The designer of the building claims it was made to withstand mutiple 707's which are of close size and fuel capacity.

The hit, yes. The fire ?

 

[delphi_ote]

Why would these guys draw any conclusions before the actual investigation? The case wasn't under way untl 144 days later.

His speculation was fine until he disagreed with you. Why is that?

 

[Year Zero]

The designer of the building claims it was made to withstand mutiple 707's which are of close size and fuel capacity.

Wrong. First of all, that is a much smaller plane, second it was not intended to withstand a hit at top speed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sorry, I must have my priorities all screwed up since I didn't do anything in what you would consider a timely manner.

It's more that you did not do what you said you would do.

Want more? Just ask.

How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

I asked this on the page before last, then again on the previous page.

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

I think that would give us a good basis for a reasonable discussion. Just the one or two things that you think best show a conspiracy or a flaw in the official story.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Wrong. First of all, that is a much smaller plane, second it was not intended to withstand a hit at top speed.

Wrong? Really?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

To summarize the aircraft:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

His speculation was fine until he disagreed with you. Why is that?

No, his speculation was fine until he decided, based on no investigation, to change his view...hence the question...he says he spoke to other collegues and they changed his mind.

Wow..what backbone and scientific rigor.

It's more that you did not do what you said you would do.

Really, I was under the impression I had been doing that the entire time...if the supplied links to various sources are not good enough for you, perhaps you should do your own research....or better yet, get to work debunking as you do.

I asked this on the page before last, then again on the previous page.

yep, you want me to narrow it down to two or one, as if there is ever a single piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt convince a person one way or the other...besides that my contention has been that the linking of catastrophic coincidental failures, political agenda's, political histories, inconsistent timelines, poor investigations, muddled cover-ups, and events that defy any previously known or anticipated outcome... such as the way and means of the collapse itself that is, regardless of view point, very much in question.

Any serious scrutiny into the available information only brings more holes that in any other investigation would be looked into fully.

If the government is not responsible they should feel some measure of duty to prove innocence to a skeptical world. If they have nothing to hide there should be a full disclosure for there is nothing that would be to sensitive to no be included in a investigation.

I haven't heard a single point made yet as to why they should feel the need to obscure information that seemed to make any sense.

Lastly, if the government is in full possession of incontrovertable evidence that proves 100% of the story as told, then why not release all the information that supports the assertions.

The reason I have stated earlier is: there is no real evidence to support it.

Your entire arguments hinges on: They are too dumb to have done anything this involved...even though there is plenty of historical precedent for political conspiracy.

 

[CurtC]

No, his speculation was fine until he decided, based on no investigation, to change his view...hence the question...he says he spoke to other collegues and they changed his mind.

Wow..what backbone and scientific rigor.

Someone who can recognize when he has made a mistake, and correct himself. How refreshing.

yep, you want me to narrow it down to two or one, as if there is ever a single piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt convince a person one way or the other...

So there is no evidence for a conspiracy that can withstand scrutiny?

If the government is not responsible they should feel some measure of duty to prove innocence to a skeptical world.

You mean not responsible, as in proving that they didn't take an active role in carrying out the attacks? They don't feel a need to prove innocence because only a handful of insane people believe otherwise. It's not a significant issue for them.

 

[delphi_ote]

No, his speculation was fine until he decided, based on no investigation, to change his view...hence the question...he says he spoke to other collegues and they changed his mind.

But he'd done no investigation before he changed his views, either. As I previously stated, you're okay with whatever speculation agrees with your conspiracy theory and nothing more. In the disgusting tradition of the Holocaust deniers before you, you're picking the evidence that makes your case and ignoring the rest.

 

[Freakshow]

Wrong? Really?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

It was designed under the assumption that the plane would have little fuel left, and be cruising at a slow speed, for approach to landing. The idea is that it would be a plane at the end of its journey, on approach, and totally lost in dense fog.

The planes that did hit the WTC did so with a lot of fuel in them, and travelling at a much higher speed than you would see in a 707 on approach to landing.

ETA: And notice that it was not the impact that brought the planes down. It was the fire afterwards. And while thinking about that fire, think of what I posted above about the design requirements (plane low on fuel) compared to what actually happened (plane nearly full of fuel).

 

[thesyntaxera]

But he'd done no investigation before he changed his views, either. As I previously stated, you're okay with whatever speculation agrees with your conspiracy theory and nothing more.

I never said I agree with him....so, where are you getting this? I pulled that quote because Zero stated that basically no strucural engineers thought demolition the day it happened.

In the disgusting tradition of the Holocaust deniers before you, you're picking the evidence that makes your case and ignoring the rest.

Isn't that what skepticism does too? Besides, I am not cherry picking anything...the Commision, FEMA report, and NIST investigation have all been thoroughly disputed....all I am am doing is pointing out where.

Instead of comparing me to the "disgusting tradition of holocaust deniers" in some sordid attempt at getting a rise out of me you could be reading and debasing all the information I have linked....

Or would that not be near as fun as hurling insults of the most immature variety?

 

[thesyntaxera]

It was designed under the assumption that the plane would have little fuel left, and be cruising at a slow speed, for approach to landing. The idea is that it would be a plane at the end of its journey, on approach, and totally lost in dense fog.

Really? So what a low speed for the plane? And what does that have to do with anything? Links to any sources?

The planes that did hit the WTC did so with a lot of fuel in them, and travelling at a much higher speed than you would see in a 707 on approach to landing

This is true...if that mattered.

ETA: And notice that it was not the impact that brought the planes down. It was the fire afterwards. And while thinking about that fire, think of what I posted above about the design requirements (plane low on fuel) compared to what actually happened (plane nearly full of fuel).

Maybe you could have read the previous posts....As stated in the FEMA and NIST reports, it wasn't the fuel fed fire that caused it to fall, it was the office furniture fire that burned for 85 minutes that was ignited by the fuel...they state most of the fuel burned on impact.

 

[thesyntaxera]

So there is no evidence for a conspiracy that can withstand scrutiny?

As far as I can tell you haven't disproven anything...just added to the conjecture.

You mean not responsible, as in proving that they didn't take an active role in carrying out the attacks? They don't feel a need to prove innocence because only a handful of insane people believe otherwise. It's not a significant issue for them.

Thats a shame.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.

On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org.

 

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060109135344541

This is what they say:

Steel frame buildings cannot collapse at virtually the speed of gravity, symmetrically, straight down into a relatively small pile of rubble due to fire or any other natural occurrence. Case closed…

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a hydro-carbon fire. Case closed again…

A paper passport cannot survive a plane crashing at 400 miles an hour into a building, survive the collapse of a 110 story tower which pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust, then be found intact on top of the rubble. Case closed again…

Four commercial airliners cannot get hijacked within minutes of each other, have their transponders shut off, make u-turns in the sky and fly for nearly two hours without being intercepted if air defense protocol is followed. Case closed again…

The multi-trillion dollar US defense/intelligence apparatus cannot receive many years of warnings of terrorist attacks, including specific mention of use of planes being flown into buildings, and attribute the success of the attacks of 9/11 entirely to failure and incompetence. Case closed again…

Arab terrorists who are supposedly plotting to commit such a grand scale operation as the 9/11 attacks don’t exist in this country without making an effort to conceal their identity, nor tell flight instructors they don’t care about learning how to take off or land, unless they feel they’re under protection. Muslim fanatics on a jihad don’t hang out in bars, go to casinos, do drugs, and get lap dances. An official investigation that ignores these facts cannot be taken seriously. Case closed again…

Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who allegedly crashed into the Pentagon--who was reported by his flight instructors to be such a terrible pilot that he couldn’t even fly a Cessna--could not have maneuvered a Boeing 757 to make a 270 degree turn during a 2.5 minute 7,000 foot descent from which it flew into the Pentagon without even touching the lawn. Case closed again…

Osama Bin Laden could not have been the person in the miraculously-found video showing a celebration after the attacks because his face simply doesn’t match many other photos of him, he was writing with the wrong hand, and because the figure in that video was wearing a gold band, which is prohibited in the Muslim faith. Case closed again…

The FDNY is not equipped or trained to “pull” Building 7 in a controlled demolition, as was reported by WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein. Nor can any building be prepared for such a well-designed demolition in the few hours before Building 7 “fell.” Case closed again…

The removal of the steel debris, which should have been treated as forensic evidence at the scene of a crime, was in itself a criminal act. This act has been inexplicably ignored by the media and 9/11 Commission and is further proof of a massive cover-up. Case closed again…

Key people within the FBI and cabinet positions are not rewarded with promotions for failure to take actions that would have prevented the attacks, as they have been since 9/11. Case closed again…

An official investigation of the attacks cannot be taken seriously when it took 14 months to authorize it, was then underfunded and obstructed, was then staffed only by government insiders who failed to ask hundreds of questions posed by victims’ families and excluded important information provided by whistleblowers, based its whole premise on proving the official story, and allowed the FAA timeline to be changed. Case closed again…

you can stop off here and read more:

http://911readingroom.org/bib/

 

[thesyntaxera]

Here are all of the related jones linked articles mentioned in the video's, I believe every one comes from a legitimate news source..although I haven't read every single one.

I thought maybe you would appreciate this since you can't watch more than 10 minutes of the video's themselves.

http://www.infowars.org/sept11_archive.htm

 

[thesyntaxera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism

this made me laugh, I thought it sounded famliar...

Pseudoskeptics unduly criticise and villify the proponents of various present-day theories. Pseudoskeptics usually focus on an opponent's mistakes, sometimes labeling proponents of a protoscientific theory as "mad scientists" in a discussion, and denying any possibility of a conspiracy theory.

The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).

The assumption of facts (such as stating that theories determine phenomena).

The obfuscation of facts.

The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.

Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and runs on majority rule.

Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.

Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".

Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.

Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

 

[thesyntaxera]

And just so I don't appear biased

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

is a good read too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies

as well

 

[thesyntaxera]

maybe this is more to your taste:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war.

Sept 10, 2001: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. “Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/01] "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Sept 11, 2001: Recovery experts extract data from 32 WTC computer drives revealing a surge in financial transactions. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]

This is just a sample...read on.