What modivates 9/11 CT'ers

[bofors]

The JREF "Conspiracy Theories" forum consists of 124 pages of threads posted over approximately a year and a half.

Start with page 1.

Thanks, I looked at some of the 9/11 threads here already.

Now please explain why you think I am "crazy and/or stupid".

 

[bofors]

lemme guess?

melted steel?
free-fall?
pull-it?
thermite?
footprint?
norad?

go fer yer smokin gun or get outa town....

BV

Let's start with NIST.

NIST spent 3 years, $20 million on a study resulting in a 10,000 page report that fails to explain why the twin towers completely "collapsed", yet they refuse to seriously consider controlled demoltion.

 

[gumboot]

Let's start with NIST.

NIST spent 3 years, $20 million on a study resulting in a 10,000 page report that fails to explain why the twin towers completely "collapsed", yet they refuse to seriously consider controlled demoltion.

They weren't required to study past the point of collapse initiation, and neither is it possible to provide anything in the way of detailed study past this point.

-Gumboot

 

[leftysergeant]

Let's start with NIST.

NIST spent 3 years, $20 million on a study resulting in a 10,000 page report that fails to explain why the twin towers completely "collapsed", yet they refuse to seriously consider controlled demoltion.

Off hand, I would say it was because there is bugger all to indicate that there were any high explosive detonations observable at any location within miles of the scene.

 

[bofors]

... and neither is it possible to provide anything in the way of detailed study past this point.

Why would you think that?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Suppose that NIST had modeled the entire collapse, and it showed that gravity was all that was needed to explain the collapse; would you still think that 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[bonavada]

Let's start with NIST.

NIST spent 3 years, $20 million on a study resulting in a 10,000 page report that fails to explain why the twin towers completely "collapsed", yet they refuse to seriously consider controlled demoltion.

LINK a stated aim of the NIST investigation was to establish the "probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers" (my bold) IMO they did a remarkable job of it.
seems NIST, like most other rational thinkers, thought controlled demolition rather improbable.
i tend to agree.

BV

 

[bonavada]

Suppose that NIST had modeled the entire collapse, and it showed that gravity was all that was needed to explain the collapse; would you still think that 9/11 was an inside job?

POPE? Catholic?

BV

 

[TheRedWorm]

This pope, or popes in general?

 

[bofors]

Off hand, I would say it was because there is bugger all to indicate that there were any high explosive detonations observable at any location within miles of the scene.

Really?

What about the many credible witnesses which testify to detonations like the FDNY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

Is that "bugger all" to you?

 

[leftysergeant]

Really?

What about the many credible witnesses which testify to detonations like the FDNY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

Is that "bugger all" to you?

Precisely bugger all.

Being, myself, a veteran fire fighter, I know that stuff blows up all the time in large fires. Bloody rare that it would be a randomly-placed bomb.

 

[buka001]

Before I watch the video. Do they specifically say "detonations" or do they say "sounds like detonations"?

 

[bofors]

LINK a stated aim of the NIST investigation was to establish the "probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers" (my bold)

Exactly, the NIST investigation was absurd to begin with. They did not even attempt to try to explain what happened. NIST just proposed a hypothetical initiation for some kind of collapse, not one that needed to account for the destinct characteristics of the "collapses" observed.

IMO they did a remarkable job of it.

I found it remarkable that NIST models fail to initiate collapse under the true conditions and that NIST had to artifically manipulate many crictical parameters to achieve "initiation" of collapse:

                            North Tower  South Tower
increase in impact speed	29 mph	28 mph
decrease in approach angles	3º	1º
increase in aircraft weight	5%	5%
increase in aircraft strength	25%	15%
decrease in Tower strength	20%	15%
decrease in Tower live load	20%	20%
increase in Tower fuel load	25%	25%

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

seems NIST, like most other rational thinkers, thought controlled demolition rather improbable.

Frankly, I am more concerned with real data and laws of physics than "rational" thinking. I mean, science is not based on arm-chair philosophy.

 

[bofors]

Before I watch the video. Do they specifically say "detonations" or do they say "sounds like detonations"?

Both.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You're concerned with physics, so as evidence of explosives, you post eyewitness testimony? And, you didn't answer this question: Suppose that NIST had modeled the entire collapse, and it showed that gravity was all that was needed to explain the collapse; would you still think that 9/11 was an inside job?

I'd really like to know, if you don't mind answering, of course.

 

[bofors]

Precisely bugger all.

Being, myself, a veteran fire fighter, I know that stuff blows up all the time in large fires. Bloody rare that it would be a randomly-placed bomb.

Did you know that fire has never lead to a collapse of a steel framed building: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

[TheRedWorm]

Did you know that fire has never lead to a collapse of a steel framed building: http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

Then how do you explain these? Will you move the goalposts?

$60,000 Steel Hay Shed collapses due to fire, February 25, 2007

Kader Toy Factory, May 10, 1993

McCormick Place Exhibition Hall, Chicago, January 16, 1967

Sight And Sound Theatre, Strasburg, January 28, 1997

Windsor Tower, Madrid, February 12, 2005 - steel component of structure suffers total collapse

It's worth pointing out that none of these buildings suffered structural damage prior to the fire starting.

-Gumboot

 

[bofors]

You're concerned with physics, so as evidence of explosives, you post eyewitness testimony?

Don't worry, I will get to the physics.

And, you didn't answer this question: Suppose that NIST had modeled the entire collapse, and it showed that gravity was all that was needed to explain the collapse; would you still think that 9/11 was an inside job?

I'd really like to know, if you don't mind answering, of course.

This question is not relevant to the "rational" thought process here. But since you insist, even if NIST provided a credible "gravity" account for destruction of all the WTC buildings now, I would still think that 9/11 was an inside job for other reasons. These reseasons include issues at the Pentagon, NORADs failure to respond and the clear indication of prior knowledge.

 

[bofors]

Then how do you explain these? Will you move the goalposts?

The link to the Kader Toy factory does not work, but I looked at the other five and am already familar with the Windsor building.

None of these are collapses of the steel framing, most are merely roof collapses. This is hardly the same thing as the total collapse of the WTC buildings.

In fact the Windsor building is used to make my point, it did not totally collapse despite burning for over 10 hours:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

 

[DGM]

Did you know that fire has never lead to a collapse of a steel framed building: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Welcome bofors;
How many 883' passenger ships sunk after hitting an iceberg prior to 1912?