The Truth Behind 9/11

[ans]

As for the offical (whitewash) inquiry, belive what u want.

 

Therein is the conspiracy nut's biggest problem; his refusal to acknowledge anything that doesn't agree with his own warped point of view and complete dismissal of it as evidence. It never once occurs to them that perhaps it's they who are wrong. If it doesn't correlate, it's lies. If it contradicts, it's lies. If it disproves, it's lies.

 

Yet a scrap of inconsistany tempered with a tenuous link to anything shady is considered absolute fact and obliterates the thousands of facts to the contrary.

[Albert Tatlock]

You people are the same as the moon landing conspiracy nutcases and the neanderthals who deny evolution. You grab onto the tiniest inconsistencies in accepted accounts, ignore mountains and mountains of facts, and then you blow it out of all proportion. If you'd just take five minutes to lift the tinfoil cap back from over your eyes and do some real research you would see that most of what you claim is utterly baseless. Instead you spend hours in your revolutionary command centre, diligently memorising diatribes and arguments from websites that give equal space to "Zionist New World Order" articles, or rampant UFO speculation.

This is a specific debate about one topic, and for you to try and group all conspiracy theories under one 'tinfoil-cap' is unfair. You are using an argument of association - such as 'one girl hurt me therefore all girls will hurt me' to group all 'conspiracy theorists' under one banner. In my case I said I was undecided on this issue and specifically WTC7. However, much you might disagree with that is irrelvant to me, but trying to undermine me by associating me with 'moon landing' and 'Zionist' conspiracy theories is, at best, poor.

 

Other people are entitled to their opinions and to draw their own conclusions, based on the evidence they have seen (which in this case is often the same as what you have seen) as well as their own understanding of current affairs.

 

I know you disagree...you have made your point...but however angry you get or however much you stamp your feet won't change my viewpoint.

[Dr_Dave]

Yet a scrap of inconsistany tempered with a tenuous link to anything shady is considered absolute fact and obliterates the thousands of facts to the contrary.

 

It is the perfect delusional fantasy because it is self-reinforcing. Let's face it, none of us were there, none of us saw what really happened for certain so we have to rely on second hand accounts. Any evidence that rational people provide is by definition from another source. The conspiracy mentalists then have a foothold with which to build their argument. "You show me this report, I dismiss it because the authors are part of the conspiracy", "these eye witness statements are from people planted to mislead us from the truth".

 

It's a classic twist on the creationist tactic of dismissing evidence with the claim that "God made it appear this way, and who are we to question God?".

 

Consequently, we can never win these arguments, because you can't convince people who have no concept of rational debate.

 

I know you disagree...you have made your point...but however angry you get or however much you stamp your feet won't change my viewpoint.

 

Heh, I rest my case.

 

Dave

[Albert Tatlock]

Heh, I rest my case.

Which only goes to prove that you didn't read my post.

[Roger Smelly]

I want to know why the like of me and albert who have a similar outlook regarding 9/11 are being told that we are crack pots.

 

I personally have my own idea on who it happened, which i stand by.

 

But for people who think that questioning things is bad and the offical investigation is "fact", you must have a very closed mind.

 

Ever heard of miscarriages of justice ?

 

Look

 

Dr Dave why did you join this forum on sept 11 2006 ?

[ans]

Dr Dave why did you join this forum on sept 11 2006 ?

 

Clearly he's part of the Government coverup conspiracy....

[Dr_Dave]

Which only goes to prove that you didn't read my post.

 

Oh, I read it. And we've so far established that your viewpoint won't be changed by evidence or anger. What else can we try? Bribes?

 

On a more serious note. Could you give me a straight yes or no answer to the following question:

 

Do you accept that a building that suffered serious structural damage and 7 hours of fire damage could collapse without external interference?

 

Dave

[Chinahand]

I know you disagree...you have made your point...but however angry you get or however much you stamp your feet won't change my viewpoint.

 

Fine Albert, but I've not got angry and I've not stamped my feet. I've provided you large amounts of data from hundreds of research scientists who have interviewed fire fighters and other witnesses, built up clear data on the extent of the damage to the building, examined the remains, undertaken physical and computer modelling of the building etc etc.

 

You just go ... Nope not convinced. What I have to ask you is WHY AREN'T YOU CONVINCED? You give no explanation why you are happy in your professional life to accept expert testimony, but in this single case your not.

 

You have so far refused to explain why these thousands of researchers may be lying to you, or innacurate in their pronouncements. You've refused to explain what other events may have caused the building to collapse ... I've asked you to round out my conception of what WTC 7 nutters think, but you're mute in your replies.

 

You are Canute like sitting in your chair, going I'm not convinced, I'm not convinced as wave upon wave of information that would convince any rational person engulfs you.

 

EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE NOT CONVINCED OR ACCEPT YOUR ACTING LIKE A NUT.

[Albert Tatlock]

EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE NOT CONVINCED OR ACCEPT YOUR ACTING LIKE A NUT.

Chinahand, it is not like you to say the equivalent of 'agree with me or admit you are a nut'. You surprise me.

 

Nevertheless...in the case of WTC7 (and only WTC7), my final comment is this. Two major factors:

 

1. The general probability of steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, given that there have been far more ferocious fires in similarly designed buildings that have not collapsed, observing the actual uneven (asymettric) distribution of fires within WTC7, and considering the temperatures they are likely to have burned at (including the fact this was not sufficient to break most of the windows).

2. The probability of the building collapsing in the manner it did...suggesting that all the supports throughout WTC7 failed simultaneously, whereas buildings with damage to one or more sides tend to topple or come down unevenly (assymetrically). I do not argue that the collapse of the penthouse alone could have started the collapse, but in all probability, I believe this would have still led to an assymetric collapse of the building. I do not dispute that there was damage to the building, but I do dispute that this damage was in any way symettrical, which if anything, argues the case for a higher probability of an asymmetric collapse.

 

Again, I emphasise 'undecided'...purely on the basis of the above probabilities that IMHO this would lead to an asymmetrical collapse.

 

If on the other hand you for one moment look at this the other way, could you stand up in court and be able to argue that "without doubt, WTC7 could not possibly have been a deliberate collapse!" ? I think not because there are a number of possible scenarios that can fit.

[Dr_Dave]

1. The general probability of steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, given that there have been far more ferocious fires in similarly designed buildings that have not collapsed, observing the actual uneven (asymettric) distribution of fires within WTC7, and considering the temperatures they are likely to have burned at (including the fact this was not sufficient to break most of the windows).

2. The probability of the building collapsing in the manner it did...suggesting that all the supports throughout WTC7 failed simultaneously, whereas buildings with damage to one or more sides tend to topple or come down unevenly (assymetrically). I do not argue that the collapse of the penthouse alone could have started the collapse, but in all probability, I believe this would have still led to an assymetric collapse of the building. I do not dispute that there was damage to the building, but I do dispute that this damage was in any way symettrical, which if anything, argues the case for a higher probability of an asymmetric collapse.

 

Video evidence of it actually happening any good to you?

 

WTC7 Collapsing

 

The collapse happens in three stages:

 

1) The first 2-3 seconds of the video show the left hand side of the building peeling away;

2) Around 8 seconds, the raised part (penthouse?) begins to collapse;

3) Finally the rest of the structure gives way.

 

That seems consistent with an assymetric collapse to me, and not at all reminiscent of a controlled demolition, as seems to be the implication.

 

Again, I emphasise 'undecided'...purely on the basis of the above probabilities that IMHO this would lead to an asymmetrical collapse.

 

So if it did lead to an assymetrical collapse (see video above) you would be decided?

 

If on the other hand you for one moment look at this the other way, could you stand up in court and be able to argue that "without doubt, WTC7 could not possibly have been a deliberate collapse!" ? I think not because there are a number of possible scenarios that can fit.

 

That's a false argument. Not being able to rule something out does not attribute it equal or greater probability than the alternative. Of course it could have been a controlled explosion. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to it not being a controlled explosion.

 

Dave

[Chinahand]

EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE NOT CONVINCED OR ACCEPT YOUR ACTING LIKE A NUT.

Chinahand, it is not like you to say the equivalent of 'agree with me or admit you are a nut'. You surprise me.

 

I have never said to you "agree with me or admit you are a nut" or anything equivalent to it.

 

I asked you to explain WHY. If you cannot see the difference between these two things well I give up, I cannot believe you are that dense.

 

The issue for me is that you continue to reject without explanation a large amount of work by eminently qualified people who have spent years investigating the issue at great expense ... your discussion of probabilities evades that ... the question a court, or a scientist, would ask would be given the balance of probabilities what is the most likely explanation of the event.

 

Are you genuinely claiming any other realistic scenarios ... which I have asked you to outline, but which you still do not do ... are anywhere close to being alternative explanations.

 

You are saying the official explanation is something like a one in a million probability and hence must be rejected.

 

Firstly I disagree with your probablilities because of the work done showing the collapse mechanism was perfectly explanable given the facts examined by NIST.

 

But secondly what are the probabilities of hidden explosives, rigged in 7 hours, or in advance, insurance frauds, stock manipulation, and having advanced warning of the attacks in order to perpertrate a fraud, or whatever alternative you can suggest.

 

Science isn't about fact its about using evidence to provide the currently best explanation of a phenonenon. If you are going to reject one set of explanations you have to explain why AND provide an alternative better set of explanations if you are going to claim to be scientific.

 

I don't see much sign of that in your posts on this issue.

[Albert Tatlock]

By symettric collpase I mean to have collapsed on it's footprint. By an asymettric collapse I mean that the building would have toppled and spread well over its footprint.

[Dr_Dave]

By symettric collpase I mean to have collapsed on it's footprint. By an asymettric collapse I mean that the building would have toppled and spread well over its footprint.

 

Oh, I see. You went to the Hanna Barberra School of Cartoon Engineering?

 

Back here on planet earth, our gravity acts downwards. Suppose the supports gave out, say, higher up in the building? Like around the penthouses, as the video evidence suggests. The penthouses collapse downwards, the energy of their fall causes the rest of the structure to give out. This wouldn't cause the building to topple like a felled tree.

 

Dave

[Albert Tatlock]

Oh, I see. You went to the Hanna Barberra School of Cartoon Engineering?

No slim I didn't.

[Dr_Dave]

No slim I didn't.

 

Excuse me?

 

Dave