Loose Change

[Alek]

I actually got a response to this!

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please refrain from name-calling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[delphi_ote]

... and you should accept this without interpretation.

Why? If something sounded like a bomb, it must be a bomb? That's absurd.

Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

Do you have video of the building burning on multiple floors like we've seen here for WTC7?

 

[delphi_ote]

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.

 

[WildCat]

Another interesting video I found is this:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is?

Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.

Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?

The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building?

Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer.

It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds".

Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes.

 

[Alek]

Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.

You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing.

Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar.

So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety?

Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism?

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

 

[Alek]

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please refrain from name-calling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Please moderate fairly. I've been called plenty of names. Scroll up.

 

[WildCat]

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there?

So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0...

Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal of this post?

 

[Hellbound]

The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032

Besides, we're still waiting for evidence of anything outside of what would be normal for a plane impact and fires.

Sure, you've offered a lot of speculation and post-hoc reasoning, but to borrow from forensics, you haven't met the proof:

You've offered no believable motive.
You haven't offered any method that has reliable evidence to back it up (so far, ONE person out of thousands in and around the buildings that claims to have heard a boom from the basement, with no real detail).
No evidence of anyone sneaking into the building to plant bombs.
No evidence of controlled demolition (in fact, evidecne runs counter to this idea, squibs especially)
No evidence of the free fall speeds you spout (easily disproven by the video, where debris falls faster than the building. Not freefall.)
No "melted steel"
No reason why an already damaged structure should not collapse (when plenty of reasons were offered, by experts in the field, as to why it should, and many suprised it lasted as long as it did)

By the way, those airline stock trades everyone talks about were fully investigated by the SEC. Most of the airline trades were traced back to certain predictions made by investment advisors prior to 9/11, not the government or related parties. The documents advising these trades gave solid market reasons for them, no indication of any sort of prior knowledge.

 

[delphi_ote]

You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing.

Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar.

So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety?

Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism?

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly.

By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate.

I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.

 

[Alek]

Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.

The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that.

Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?

I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away. Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you? This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse.

Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, "Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me.

Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer.

I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2. This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings! Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?). I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished.

Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes.

Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses.

Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell.

I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.

 

[Alek]

I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there?

So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0...

Proclaiming victory and that you've debunked my claims doesn't make it so. It's more evidence of the vapidity, vanity, and intellectual insecurity I've seen from people who self-identify as "skeptics". The only thing that has been debunked in my mind, so far, is the idea that the towers should have toppled more due to the asymmetric nature of their damage. Clearly there weren't many possible ways in which they could have fallen, other than about straight down. And this was by a user on the bautforum.

Is this about your ego, or about finding the truth?

Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal of this post?

Not yet, I'll take a look.

 

[delphi_ote]

That was disappointing.

 

[Alek]

You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032

There are too many logical and conceptual errors in that last bit of inanity to bother with.

I would merely point out that any theory can be disproven with just one piece of evidence, and that the valuation of evidence, particularly non-falsifiable evidence, is subjective.

You've offered no believable motive.

This is a forum populated by supposed "skeptics". I'm trying to stick to what can be falsified, which of course is difficult with any conspiracy theory. Offering motives is just speculation. I've spent the last 10 or so years learning about the motives, and they are fantastic. In fact, if I offered them, you would no doubt denounce me as a kook, not that it already hasn't been implied. So lets try and stick to the physical evidence, at least for the time being. We're having enough trouble seeing eye-to-eye with that.

I will admit that my weltanschauung greatly influences my idea of what happend on 9/11. The context of our existence colors all of our perceptions, whether we like it or not, and no one is free from bias.

 

[WildCat]

The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that.

You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way.

I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away.

Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking?

Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you?

It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors.

This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse.

Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented on your interpretation of his work:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me.

I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down.

Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc.

Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination.

I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Funny, because an example was posted earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower fire. To refresh your memory:

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete.

It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line?

This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings!

I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757.

Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?).

One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse.

Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?

I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished.

Which boils down to...

Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses.

As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video, complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore.

Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell.

Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"?

I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.

But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.

 

[Alek]

You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly.

By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate.

I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.

This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here!

Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said:

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change

Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true. When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety. Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied.

Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful. Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending. Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate.

So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk.

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

 

[kookbreaker]

This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here!

Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup?

Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said:

No. Not even close. This is like saying someone did not read all of StormFront's doctrines is lying for saying they've seen their stuff and found it to be racist.

Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true.

Wrong. That wasn't even a good try.

When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety.

I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it?

Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied.

Just keep telling yourself that and you might beleive it. You'll be the only one, but that's better than none.

Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful.

Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak.

Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending.

Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo!

Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate.

Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it.

So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk.

Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies.

Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up.

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

Sounds like Delphi's got your number.

Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving?

 

[delphi_ote]

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable.

It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic.

 

[delphi_ote]

Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California.

You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense.

Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?

 

[Alek]

You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way.

Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice.

Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence".

Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking?

Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away.

It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors.

It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground.

Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented on your interpretation of his work:

Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important.

I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down.

That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them.

Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc.

You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations.

Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination.

I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true *ESPECIALLY* concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive.

Funny, because an example was posted earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower fire. To refresh your memory:

I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7. Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't.

If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete.

It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line?

Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing.

You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell".

Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.

I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757.

I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters".

One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse.

Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?

I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this. Well, maybe in your mind.

Which boils down to...

Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear.

As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video, complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore.

I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I *still* don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid.

Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"?

A few paragraphs up, you said this:

"There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..."

Which is it?

But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.

If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them.

 

[Alek]

You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense.

Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?

I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt. I grew up in Miami, so I can attest that central Florida pretty much sucks. It's got a bunch of people with parochial attitudes.