Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory

[MaGZ]

On top of that, there is indeed a "Let It Happen On Purpose" (LIHOP) contingent out there. They're just relatively quiet compared to the "Made It Happen on Purpose" (MIHOP) folks.

The LIHOP pertains to the Israeli Mossad only and not to the US government.

 

[MaGZ]

So their belief in a demolition is actually the starting point for their conspiracy theory? That would at least explain why they are so committed to it.

Also, the 'science-like' statements made about the collapse are also appealing to some.

The collapse of WTC 7 is the starting point for most.

 

[MaGZ]

Well, not really. Both points of view have been proposed on this forum, and shot down quite comprehensively.

The remote control theory can be quite popular with truthers who know nothing about airliner design (although I'm not sure that excludes any). Jim Hoffman's Scenario 404, for example, proposes that a remote control program was installed in the control systems of the 9/11 airliners under the cover of a spin recovery program upgrade to the autopilot. It's a superficially compelling idea for anyone who's completely ignorant of how the autopilot system on a 757 or 767 actually works; the naive assumption is that everything is controlled by a digital computer, and all that's needed to take it over is some kind of trojan. Unfortunately for the credibility of this theory, the autopilots of 757s and 767s, on 9/11 at least, were analogue systems that could be simply disabled by the pilots, and a major rebuild would be required to install any automatic control system that couldn't be locally overridden. Even more damningly, Airbus 300 series and Boeing 777s, whose fly-by-wire systems might conceivably have played host to such a system, were in widespread use on 9/11, presenting the obvious absurdity that the conspirators are supposed to have chosen the airliners least suitable for their purpose.

The Mossad line is more popular with the neo-Nazi wing (in the sense of the word meaning one of the main reasons it's still flying) of the truth movement. The idea is that Mossad commandos storm the cockpit, kill or incapacitate the crew, and install some unknown remote control device; although this could be neutralised quite trivially, there is now nobody to neutralise it. The problem with this, apart from the fact that Israel would have very little to gain and inconceivably large amounts to lose from a false flag attack on its most reliable ally, is that Mossad would be very unlikely to carry out a suicide attack - in the absence of religious fervour, how would the pilots be motivated? - and so would have to exit the airliner after having taken control and rigged up their remote control system. One member suggested that they could have exited through the nosewheel bay (which is not, of course, accessible from the pressurised interior) at cruising speed (which would probably have torn them in half when they hit the slipstream) and parachuted down into upstate New York without being noticed or remarked upon, because apparently this sort of thing happens all the time. It was a good piece of comedy, albeit unintentional.

The nearest any truther has come to a plausible suggestion is the small minority who suggest that Osama bin Laden was a tool of the CIA, and was therefore instructed to carry out the attacks. That's deeply unpopular with truthers, though, probably for two reasons: firstly, everything after the initial idea is exactly as history records it, so it's almost impossible to prove; secondly, it's simply not sexy enough. So they'd rather recreate reality in a more easily proven form.

Dave

I totally reject the Israeli commando theory of 9/11.

 

[Telltale Tom]

What do you think about what he says about WTC 1 & 2?

Is he right 1/3 of the time?

This is a very important point in how we approach truth, here at ae911truth. It is very important for us at ae911truth to consider every statement made by experts in isolation from each other. So it is very important that Danny Jowenko said that WTC 7 looked like a controlled, but it is not really important to us at ae911truth when he said that WTC 1 and 2 did not. The truth shown in our web site is simply a collection of all statements that indicate the truth that at all three towers were demolished by Controlled Demolition.

We do not record the statements made by experts against the truth, or we would never feature half the people that are part of our irrefutable expert witnesses, like Les Robertson and the other structural big wigs.

If people do not want the Truth they can go to other web sites

 

[Dave Rogers]

ETA: I see that DC already corrected your error and you acknowledged it.

Yeah, we all make mistakes and this was one of mine. I'll subtract one data point from the "truthers are lying scumbags" collection.

Dave

 

[traviss]

Free Fall Speed. Start there. Think. We can't do it for you.

 

[Hornit]

Besides MR Jowenko and his obvious sometimes confusion, are there any other CD experts, or companies who have stepped forward and aligned themselves with truthers in claiming that either the WTC's or 7 appear to be CD's?

I'm at it again over on "another forum" debunking this stuff and this particular topic keeps cropping up.

 

[Crazy J]

The CD theories are so popular. There are some theories that will never die away no matter how ludacris they may seem. I think.

 

[Oystein]

Free Fall Speed. Start there. Think. We can't do it for you.

False input data + think = false results


So traviss: What "free fall speed" are you talking about, and what does it tell your thinking bone?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You know...when are we going to get an actual theory from the toof about this CD garbage?

All I hear from them is, "explosions! blah, blah", and "it doesn't look right, blah blah"...

So, the toof thinks it's a CD...how was it done? Who hired who? Who planted the demo tools? How many people involved? How much thermite was used? Who pulled the trigger?

Jeez, if I was a toofer, I'd be mad as hell...not at the OT crowd, but my own group! Gage has been sucking in money for what, 5 years? And his theory guesswork hasn't matured outside of "it looks a lot like a CD". With that steady flow of cash, I'd be demanding a working theory, or at least a hypothesis, by now.

They get what they paid for, no evidence!

Truthers are a bunch of suckers!

 

[tsig]

Free Fall Speed brains. Start there. Think. We can't do it for you.

ftfy

 

[twinstead]

Free Fall Speed. Start there. Think. We can't do it for you.

By "we" do you mean the tiny group of people who think the way the buildings fell was somehow suspicious, and the members who represent vast majority of engineering and scientific communities from around the world are incompetent, stupid, or 'in on it'?

Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to get a second opinion.

 

[Horatius]

The CD theories are so popular. There are some theories that will never die away no matter how ludacris they may seem. I think.

That's either +1 for subtle cultural reference, or -1 for Spelling Nazi Attractor.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Think. We can't do it [...]

We already know that.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

Free Fall Speed.

There's no such thing.

"Speed" is expressed in unit distance per unit time.

"Free fall" is a number that represents a change in speed over time. Unit distance per unit time, per unit time again.

There is "free fall acceleration". Is that perhaps what you were referring to?

Think. We can't do it for you.

I would certainly hope not.