Why does it have to be CD?

[nicepants]

I never did understand why truthers are so "married" to controlled demolition. A controlled demolition isn't required in order for there to be or have been a conspiracy (there could just as easily have been a conspiracy simply to hijack & crash planes) but they will defend their claims of CD as if the absence of CD would disprove any possibility of any conspiracy. I think it's this "marriage" which prevents truthers from being able to be objective about the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

i.e. "I can't accept the possibility that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not CD....because accepting that would require me to stop believing in the conspiracy theory"

Anyone else noticed this?

 

[fezzic]

I never did understand why truthers are so "married" to controlled demolition. A controlled demolition isn't required in order for there to be or have been a conspiracy (there could just as easily have been a conspiracy simply to hijack & crash planes) but they will defend their claims of CD as if the absence of CD would disprove any possibility of any conspiracy. I think it's this "marriage" which prevents truthers from being able to be objective about the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

i.e. "I can't accept the possibility that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not CD....because accepting that would require me to stop believing in the conspiracy theory"

Anyone else noticed this?

Well, they have to believe that those towers were controlled demolitions (at least 1 and 2). If they didn't, if they conceded that the towers could or did collapse as a result of the two suicide aircraft crashes and all that came from those crashes, they'd have to concede that there is no way to prove from the recordings of 9/11 that there was any conspiracy. In order for something to be detected, it would have to have occurred. Analyse any video recording all you want, if what you want to find is not there, you're not going to find it.

That is why the "shock and awe" argument is made. Why it is asserted that the towers HAD to be collapsed. Why two burned out edifices (above the crash floors), tombs to hundreds of people (whose body recovery efforts might take days or weeks due to the precarious nature of the building and with, probably, full TV coverage, etc.), that would take months to dismantle or ultimately be imploded (despite the probable necessity of completely rebuilding the complex) could not be "allowed" to remain standing.

 

[deep]

I never did understand why truthers are so "married" to controlled demolition. A controlled demolition isn't required in order for there to be or have been a conspiracy (there could just as easily have been a conspiracy simply to hijack & crash planes) but they will defend their claims of CD as if the absence of CD would disprove any possibility of any conspiracy. I think it's this "marriage" which prevents truthers from being able to be objective about the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

i.e. "I can't accept the possibility that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not CD....because accepting that would require me to stop believing in the conspiracy theory"

Anyone else noticed this?

No, because you have it backwards. The belief that the buildings were brought down by CD is based purely on what was observed - the fact that it contradicts the US Government's explanation is what makes it a CT (simply speaking).

If the US Government told everyone that al Qaeda had a presence in each building prior to 9/11, leaving behind an unknown number of 'secondary devices' to aid in the destruction, I believe that would have been enough to satisfy most of the architects/engineers/scientists who are currently pushing for a new investigation. Sure, there would still be people who believe there was a cover-up, but it would be limited to those who are true conspiracy theorists (e.g., those who believe the moon landing was faked, etc).

So like I said, 'controlled demolition' does not necessarily mean there is a 'conspiracy theory'.

Plus, name one other CT that has the support of 220 PhDs, 400+ architects and engineers, numerous other scientists, law makers, government officials, etc. It's preposterous to suggest that people only believe 9/11 CTs because they are CTs, because very few (if any) of those experts were so-called 'conspiracy theorists' prior to September 11, 2001.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If the US Government told everyone that al Qaeda had a presence in each building prior to 9/11, leaving behind an unknown number of 'secondary devices' to aid in the destruction.

Does this not require that a CD is a confirmed likelihood though?
Visual observations abound, from the 'blast rings', to the assumed size of the fires, to the color of the smoke, to the 'squibs', the distress the towers exhibited indicate just as well against the need for 'secondary devices' through the inward bowing of the exterior perimeter columns. Why would al-queda be required to have left secondary devices to do the job anyway?

If the US Government told everyone that al Qaeda had a presence in each building prior to 9/11, leaving behind an unknown number of 'secondary devices' to aid in the destruction, sure, there would still be people who believe there was a cover-up, but it would be limited to those who are true conspiracy theorists (e.g., those who believe the moon landing was faked, etc).

Unfortunately reality is not as simple as that. Your interpretation of the conclusions made requires that a controlled demolition theory has been agreed to as a plausible conclusion to the events of 9/11. The government can do all the research it wants or has to but it will never stop a contingent of people from believing in a conspiracy. Even regardless of its accuracy.

Plus, name one other CT that has the support of 220 PhDs, 400+ architects and engineers, numerous other scientists, law makers, government officials, etc.

Forgive me for my unfamiliarity with the figure you're speaking of, but who are you referring to with these credentials?

It's preposterous to suggest that people only believe 9/11 CTs because they are CTs, because very few (if any) of those experts were so-called 'conspiracy theorists' prior to September 11, 2001.

Some people may not have been familiar with the circumstance of the event and have stated their expert opinions based on what they were seeing at face value. I've seen at least one clip where an engineer stated that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, however he had no explanation for how such a demo would have been carried out once he was told that the collapse occured on the same day as 9/11

However, there are still loonies as well within these fields that'll support these things regardless of if it goes against common sense in their profession.

Regardless of which is the case it does not discount the fact that:

• 123,000 members of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
• 80,000 members of AIA (American Institute of Architects)

all don't seem to question the results of the NIST (official) report

And although the their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - the people there at AE911truth don't seem to have any problems either

Also:

• 120,000 members of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
• 370,000 members of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
• 40,000 members of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers)
• 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report

 

[deep]

Unfortunately reality is not as simple as that. Your interpretation of the conclusions made requires that a controlled demolition theory has been agreed to as a plausible conclusion to the events of 9/11. The government can do all the research it wants or has to but it will never stop a contingent of people from believing in a conspiracy. Even regardless of its accuracy.

You know what - that's a great point. I really wish I would have included it in my origina- oh, wait a minute, I did include it in my original message:

Sure, there would still be people who believe there was a cover-up, but it would be limited to those who are true conspiracy theorists (e.g., those who believe the moon landing was faked, etc).
​

Amazing..

Forgive me for my unfamiliarity with the figure you're speaking of, but who are you referring to with these credentials?

http://patriotsquestion911.com
http://ae911truth.org
​

I believe there's an overlap of about 29 between the 220 PhDs and the 400+ architects & engineers (just to be clear, the number is somewhere between 0 and 29).

Some people may not have been familiar with the circumstance of the event and have stated their expert opinions based on what they were seeing at face value. I've seen at least one clip where an engineer stated that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, however he had no explanation for how such a demo would have been carried out once he was told that the collapse occured on the same day as 9/11

The "how" doesn't precede the "what" - the fact that the engineer had no explanation for how a CD could take place has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it did take place. First you figure out what happened, and then you figure out how it happened.

Regarding your "face value" comment, yes, they probably are giving their opinion based on what they're seeing at face value - that's called objectivity.

Regardless of which is the case it does not discount the fact that:

• 123,000 members of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
• 80,000 members of AIA (American Institute of Architects)

all don't seem to question the results of the NIST (official) report

And although the their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - the people there at AE911truth don't seem to have any problems either

Also:

• 120,000 members of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
• 370,000 members of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
• 40,000 members of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers)
• 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report

..and why does any of that matter? You're right, none of those listed above have come out and publicly questioned the results of the NIST report; however, you have no way of knowing how many of them question it privately, how many of them chose to correspond directly with NIST, or how many of them have yet to give any professional consideration to the evidence.

To argue that their silence is in any way indicative of their professional opinion would be an argument from silence.

 

[Brainache]

...Regarding your "face value" comment, yes, they probably are giving their opinion based on what they're seeing at face value - that's called objectivity...

No, that's called jumping to conclusions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You know what - that's a great point. I really wish I would have included it in my origina- oh, wait a minute, I did include it in my original message:

Sure, there would still be people who believe there was a cover-up, but it would be limited to those who are true conspiracy theorists (e.g., those who believe the moon landing was faked, etc).
​

Amazing..

I am talking about regardless of any conclusion that is brought about, not just the insinuation that al-quaeda (sp?) would 'might have' left secondary devices to ensure the towers' destruction.

The current version of events has a conspiracy theory movement behind it already, switching to a different conclusion won't change the fact that there will always be a conspiracy. -- you know that, fine... I fail however to see how the number of people believing it to be a CT would change dramatically, since the moment you switch a conclusion, people from the other side of the spectrum will immediately cry afoul.

patriotsquestion911*com
ae911truth*org
​

I believe there's an overlap of about 29 between the 220 PhDs and the 400+ architects & engineers (just to be clear, the number is somewhere between 0 and 29).

Will answer to this if it bugs me after I read it....

The "how" doesn't precede the "what" - the fact that the engineer had no explanation for how a CD could take place has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it did take place.

The point of the matter is that engineers and others who work in the field have made comments about the WTC 7 situation. I can't speak for all 'truth sites' as I haven't visited them all. However in the case of the video I am referring to it was being used as evidence that 'engineers and demolition experts' agree with the idea that WTC 7 involved a controlled demolition. The problem with that contention is that in his case he was unaware of when the video was taken, he thought the video was of several weeks after the attacks. When he was informed it was the same day as the 9/11 attacks he stated that he could not offer an explanation to why WTC 7 collapsed in the way that it did.

I am taking into consideration that not all engineers have had the information presented to them in the same way, and they are just as susceptible as we are to jumping to conclusions when not all of the information is available.

You're right, none of those listed above have come out and publicly questioned the results of the NIST report

ok...

how many of them chose to correspond directly with NIST

Would direct correspondence of be required to offer up a professional opinion? Having read NIST myself and done independent research I found much of the material I read to be consistent with the kind of research I would be performing to assess how the buildings performed that day. That's my own impression, but that said, the necessity for direct correspondence isn't very relevant to the matter. If you are familiar with the material relating to your field of work you can determine if the information being presented to you is a valid representation.

 

[1337m4n]

Plus, name one other CT that has the support of 220 PhDs, 400+ architects and engineers, numerous other scientists, law makers, government officials, etc.

For the love of all that is good and holy stop repeating this canard.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"No, because you have it backwards. The belief that the buildings were brought down by CD is based purely on what was observed - the fact that it contradicts the US Government's explanation is what makes it a CT (simply speaking)."

This about sums is up. The reason they push the demolition nonsense is because it's the easiest angle to prey on people's misconceptions as to how buildings work. There's a more likely chance that their pretty may know about politics, but a very small chance their pretty will know about building engineering.

 

[eromitlab]

Regardless of which is the case it does not discount the fact that:

• 123,000 members of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
• 80,000 members of AIA (American Institute of Architects)

all don't seem to question the results of the NIST (official) report

And although the their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - the people there at AE911truth don't seem to have any problems either

Also:

• 120,000 members of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
• 370,000 members of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
• 40,000 members of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers)
• 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report

Whenever this is brought to Alex Floum's (George Washington blog, 911blogger, 911summary, et cetera) attention when he makes one of his frequent "look at all these people with credibility who question 9/11" pitches on the social news site that I visit despite floods of those sorts of posts from him, he invariably claims that more professionals aren't on board because "most scientists have not spent time looking at the 9/11 to reach any kind of conclusion."
Of course, if they did, they certainly would see teh twoof... and if they don't, the government has paid them off.

 

[peteweaver]

The belief that the buildings were brought down by CD is based purely on what was observed

Its not an observation, its a misobservation.

You saw something, without understanding it, and career conspiracy theorists have exploited your lack of knowledge.

The consensus of thousands of engineers the world over, is that the combined effect of structural damage & fire, proved fatal to the twin towers causing them to fall. University civil engineering depts from the USA, right round to Australia are all in consensus.