Loose Change

[chipmunk stew]

I agree, except that if we are to assume that resourceful people were responsible for this demolition, and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, they would only use just enough explosives to allow gravity to take over and do the work:

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.

I never understood this line of speculation. Supposedly there were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers and "admissions" such as the above, and yet the towers collapsed top-down! There's no indication based on the way they fell that the foundations were compromised.

 

[WildCat]

More questions for Alek:

1. Do controlled demolitions result in pools of molten steel that persist for weeks on end? This seems to be a cornerstone of your theory. please don't interpret this as me conceding that there were such pools of molten steel at the WTC, because I'm not.

2. Pulverised concrete also seems to be a cornerstone of your theory. Have you calculated how much exposives would be necessaryto pulverize 100,000 tons (conservative estimate) of concrete? Bear in mind that your explosives must have greater energy than the kinetic energy of over 200,000 tons of WTC falling 1300 ft, since you seem to think that was inadequate for the job.

eta: and wouldn't such a huge quantity of explosives send debris flying for miles around?

3. Have you found a single structural engineer who contends the impact of the planes and resulting fires were insufficient to bring down the towers? Seems to be another cornerstone of your theory. Please don't cite the 9/11 scholars for truth, unless they have added an actual structural engineer to their ranks.

4. Since you have been unwilling or unable to find a single contemporary account by a reputable news source of anything but a 757 hitting the Pentagon, is the entire worldwide media also in on the conspiracy? Or, was everyone who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon and quoted in the days following 9/11 by the various media planted there by the gov't?

5. Is the US (and the world?) really run by a secret shadow gov't independent of or in complicity w/ the Democratic and Republican parties, who have orchestrated and then covered up the Kennedy assasination, the OKC bombing, and now the 9/11 attacks?

Of course, I expect the answer to these questions, as usual, to be (crickets chirping).

 

[kookbreaker]

How come CT'ers never consider Squeaky Fromme to be a patsy?

t'ain't fair!

 

[Longstreet]

Isn't it obvious that the towers' collapse was largely due to structural weakening from when King Kong climbed up them back in 1976?

Of course, they covered that one up, too...

SJ

 

[aggle-rithm]

You're confusing your fallacies here. Attacking Charlie Sheen so as to invalidate the information he presents is an example of argumentum ad homenim.

The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.

Charlie Sheen's celebrity status says nothing about the validity of the statements he is making. The government's authority is likewise irrelevant.

The government theory is bunk not because it is authoritative (that would be just an inverted appeal to authority), but because its theory is contradicted by factual evidence.

The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.

What you're proposing is that there was an enormous conspiracy. Watergate was a small conspiracy, but was uncovered almost immediately, and justice was quickly served (well, Nixon got off scott free, but...).

Also, you can't say that it was a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, because it was limited to a small group of people within a single branch of the government -- as ANY conspiracy would have to be!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Isn't it obvious that the towers' collapse was largely due to structural weakening from when King Kong climbed up them back in 1976?

Of course, they covered that one up, too...

SJ

I remember someone from the movie saying they couldn't use the real World Trade Center to do the filming, because, unlike the Empire State Building, which was made back when they built things to last, the WTC would collapse under the weight of a giant ape. I found that interesting, but I don't think it's true. Especially since the giant ape was just a guy in an ape suit.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I never understood this line of speculation. Supposedly there were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers and "admissions" such as the above, and yet the towers collapsed top-down! There's no indication based on the way they fell that the foundations were compromised.

Come on! You're just not thinking like a conspiracy theorist!

Obviously, they had synchronized charges near the top of the building, so it would LOOK like it was collapsing from the top down, thus creating a red herring to distract the gullible from the realities of a sub-basement explosion.

Dastardly globalists!

 

[ferd burfle]

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling.
...
You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

Wildcat already followed up as I would have for most of your points, but let me be sure of what you're saying above. You're asserting that no FBI explosives specialists examined the debris?

Ferd

 

[kookbreaker]

I remember someone from the movie saying they couldn't use the real World Trade Center to do the filming, because, unlike the Empire State Building, which was made back when they built things to last, the WTC would collapse under the weight of a giant ape. I found that interesting, but I don't think it's true. Especially since the giant ape was just a guy in an ape suit.

They actually built a complete full size 'robot giant ape' for the 1976 movie at hideous expense. It was clunky and clumsy. They had high hopes for it, but it could never do much more than stand up straight and raise its arms. The result was the need for the guy in the ape suit. If can stand watching the movie, you can see it in a couple of the shots for about a second when Kong escapes from his cage. It really looks clunky, but not rotoscoped. The robot arm fared much better

I don't know if they ever planned to put the thing on the WTC, however.

 

[rwguinn]

Wildcat already followed up as I would have for most of your points, but let me be sure of what you're saying above. You're asserting that no FBI explosives specialists examined the debris?

Ferd

Folks:
Do Not bother Alek and his ilk with facts. They are, putting it in a diplomatic form, "stupider than a box of rocks".
The merely ignorant can be educated. Alek is incapable of learning anything, as demonstrated herein.
What happend to the towers?
There was an actual technical discussion, starting here with my answer, along with agreement from structural engineers in the following posts. We cannot educate the stupid. At this point, it becomes painfully obvious that they are beyond help

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling.

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

 

[kookbreaker]

Folks:
Do Not bother Alek and his ilk with facts. They are, putting it in a diplomatic form, "stupider than a box of rocks".
The merely ignorant can be educated. Alek is incapable of learning anything, as demonstrated herein.
What happend to the towers?
There was an actual technical discussion, starting here with my answer, along with agreement from structural engineers in the following posts. We cannot educate the stupid. At this point, it becomes painfully obvious that they are beyond help

At this point I know there is no convincing someone like Alek. Conspiracies are his faith, his religion. My comments are mostly reserved for any who are on the fence, or seeking answers.

Alek has chosen his cult. It gives the same warm-fuzzy feeling as b'leevers of jeebus. Look how often he says 'I am free' and other such comments. He's wrapped in this faith.

Like X-tian witnessers, CT champion themselves as seekers and guaridans of the truth. In reality, CT'ers are like a guard dog that growls at every shadow. They think they are doing a great job, but they are worse than useless*


* comment obtained from the bautforum.

 

[Manny]

Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

Like, 10,000 majorly pissed off firefighters? The Ironworkers, some of whom were the very same people who put the Trade Center up in the first place? Yeah, the NWO could have snuck evidence right past those guys without a word of dissent.

 

[ferd burfle]

Folks:
Do Not bother Alek and his ilk with facts. They are, putting it in a diplomatic form, "stupider than a box of rocks".
...
What happend to the towers?
There was an actual technical discussion, starting here with my answer, along with agreement from structural engineers in the following posts. We cannot educate the stupid. At this point, it becomes painfully obvious that they are beyond help

RW, I read this entire thread before posting and very much appreciated (and yes, understood) your summary of the basics. I realized a few pages ago that we were trying to teach a pig to whistle here and I intended my previous post to be the last before I began Googling for an appropriate recipe.

Thanks,

Ferd

 

[delphi_ote]

Wrong. "We" didn't observe anything, speak for yourself.

You're confounding "observation" in the statistical sense with "observation" in the layman's sense. They don't mean the same thing. In statistics "observation" means that you've conducted the experiment and you know the outcome. If we believe the story of the passport, the probability of it happening doesn't matter at all. It happened.

Even if I observe something happening, it isn't a certainty.

In the statistical sense, it is a certainty. That's what certainty means: p(x)=1. In the casual sense of the word, observation clearly doesn't imply certainty.

The probability that the passport story is true depends not only on the likelyhood of this event actually occuring, but on the credibility of those in the chain of custody of the evidence.

I wasn't discussing the probability that the passport story was true. You can really only speak of such a thing in a Bayesian sense. I was discussing the probability that the event happened, given that we've observed it. No matter how unlikely an event is, if it's happened, the odds or probability just don't matter. Even if you maintain the odds were a trillion to one against it, I could easily find a series of events that have happened that are equally unlikely (e.g. the string of all lottery numbers selected in every U.S. state lottery since they were started.)

Since human beings have been known to plant evidence and lie from time to time, especially yourself, this means that the probability that the passport story is true is necessarily less than one. I'm beginning to understand your particular problem as you reveal more about yourself.

Care to point out a place where I've lied or planted evidence? Your paranoia is getting a little out of hand.

You have an irrational trust of authority, and you make regular appeals to it.

I make appeals to authority? Whose? Do you even know what that means? So far, I've backed up more of my arguments than anyone else here with my own calculations.

You have an irrational trust of authority, and you make regular appeals to it. You even use it in attempts to cause grief for other people, even perfect strangers who you disagree with, like Dr. Wood.

The woman is violating professional ethics. That's a problem.

Did you study statistics, or statism?

I'm starting to wonder if you study anything at all, Alek. So far, I've brought my understanding of probability and physics to bear on this subject. You've only contributed images and insults (and neither have been very clever.)

 

[delphi_ote]

So, if the above is what a frequentist would say (I am assuming you are one of them) Then, what would be the minimum acceptable for them to have considered that an experiment?? Would it have had to be 2 choices between A&B???

It's a little more subtle than that, but you're sort of on the right track. The frequentist would basically want to be able to conduct an actual experiment and make observations. They wouldn't like, "There are two things you know nothing about.." They need, "There is a fair coin being flipped landing randomly..."

Wouldn't the difference in philosophy prohibit them from coming to the same answer because the frequentist would not consider the same problem in the case you gave ??

Unfortunately, this is true. A lot of work using Bayesian statistics cause frequentists to look down their nose and say "Hogwash! That's not scientific at all!" It's controversial, even today. Bayesians who publish a paper or go to a conference have to watch out for the grumpy frequentists (and there are a lot more of them than there are Bayesians!)

Thanks for your patience

Thanks for your patience and careful questioning. I'm more than happy to do my best to explain.

I feel like I should point out that this isn't all just abstract nonsense grumpy mathematicians use. Any time you use Google or common e-mail spam filters, the software is using Bayesian statistical inferences!

 

[Graham S1]

The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.

What you're proposing is that there was an enormous conspiracy. Watergate was a small conspiracy, but was uncovered almost immediately, and justice was quickly served (well, Nixon got off scott free, but...).

Also, you can't say that it was a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, because it was limited to a small group of people within a single branch of the government -- as ANY conspiracy would have to be!

You can't say it was the WHOLE government because that is simply not true, and not necessary either. Beleive it or not, there are good people that genuinely want to help in government.

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.

Why did I capitalise blackmail? Simply because there are many people in government, (far more than are actually evil), are fallible, to sexual urges. Those urges can be used and abused.

Anyone thinking this is far fetched, should look up "The Franklin Cover Up", by Senator John W Decamp. This book has nothing to do with 911, but stars many of the same players.

 

[kookbreaker]

What we are talking about here, is a small minority, who were able to carry out their plans, as most of the people who were involved, would have simply been following orders, ie military, secret service, agency staff etc. Others who tried to speak up later, would have been paid off, "accidented/suicided", or BLACKMAILED into keeping quite.

Somehow they've managed to intimidate and blackmail every structural engineer in the world. I rather doubt it.

 

[CurtC]

"An official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This conclusion of a conspiracy contrasts with the earlier conclusion by the Warren Commission that the President was assassinated by a lone gunman."

This would be an interesting subject to pursue after this one is hashed out. I suggest we start a new thread at that time.

As a preview, the HSCA conclusion was based entirely on an analysis that has since been vacated, namely the acoustic analysis of gunshot echoes. You called him an ignoramus, but I think you'll find that every single regular here agrees that Oswald was the lone gunman. But let's save that for the new thread.

 

[Shrinker]

RW, I read this entire thread before posting and very much appreciated (and yes, understood) your summary of the basics. I realized a few pages ago that we were trying to teach a pig to whistle here and I intended my previous post to be the last before I began Googling for an appropriate recipe.

Thanks,

Ferd

As a neutral observer of this debate, I just wanted to pipe up and say you're being a little harsh an Alek. He's logical and open minded, as evidenced by this post on the Loose Screws forum...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=68

It doesn't make sense to argue with people who refuse to entertain the possibility that your argument may be correct, does it? That pretty much sums up my experience at the JREF forum.

Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter.