My 9/11 concerns

[DapperDan]

I wish the government was as competent in everything else that they do as they are when planning, executing and covering up their "conspiracies".

Maybe the Department of Conspiracies can balance the budget for us.

[taekwondave]

So because the Democrats won the elecetion in 2008, Bush made the towers fall in 2001?

.......88888888

[taekwondave]

........88888888

[Jeff Lebowski]

I bought the reason that was given in the first place for many years. I am no stranger to the explanation that the steel was heated by the fire, weakening the structure and causing it to fall. That explanation was given the very same day the towers fell. I guess what I have a hard time with is the claim that there have been fires in many other skyscrapers over the years and we've never seen them collapse. But that could be because of what was brought up earlier in the thread regarding a cement core, which the twin towers supposedly didn't have. I can't argue structural engineering, but I keep hearing on here that the overall consensus of ALL "experts" is that the towers came down the way they said they did on day 1. That doesn't explain this website to me.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

But to be fair, these guys may have some personal angle as well. That's always something that has to be considered. Just off the top of my head, the angle these guys could have probably isn't financial in nature, but I could see them simply having emotionally attached themselves to the alternate explanation which tends to reaffirm their preconceived belief in evil government or something, and so they believe junk science over good science at any cost. But the same test would have to be applied to the other side as well.

Are people already so emotionally invested in the original explanation, and so sold because they heard the same story on every major news program, programs that tend to disagree on everything else and now they agree, and an innocent hope that our country really does still have some good in it and essentially still belongs to "we the people" that THEY can't see the science objectively either? It's hard to say.

I will say this: For the first time in a long time I'm open to the possibility that that those planes DID bring down those towers as you all said. But what is the explanation on building 7? No planes broke through the outer hull and reached the core of that building. Does a fire really explain why THAT building collapsed at free fall speed, reminiscent of a demolition?

Ah yes. The old "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" group.

Reminds me of the old joke:

Q: What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class at med school?
A: Doctor

The same applies to engineering. I can assure you that there are lots of idiots in this great country who somehow managed to complete an engineering degree and find employment. Not surprising that some of them would buy into this nonsense. I can also tell you that the overwhelming consensus in the engineering community is that the towers fell due to the impact damage and fires.

[taekwondave]

......8888888

[taekwondave]

........88888888

[LiveCoug]

Spoken like a Fox News republican.

Michael Moore is a liberal. He is not responsible in any way for my views on this. Watch Michael Moore's video on 9/11 and watch "Loose Change." You'll notice a very distinct difference. Michael Moore really DID just want to get a liberal elected. You can tell that from him. He's as sucked into that reality as anybody. But the loose change guys, they clearly have a slightly different world view. I really don't think it was their intent to score political points for or against anybody with that documentary.

Not in the least. I'm not even close to a Fox News republican. I just don't buy conspiracy theories. And, those that do, do they pick and choose which conspiracies to buy? Why not believe them all? If you pick and choose which conspiracies to buy, shouldn't that concern you? Occam's razor, my friend.

My Michael Moore analogy was more to show that anybody can make anything believable if presented with the express purpose of garnering an emotional response. I can see how it is easy to be lured by this type of argument, but it just doesn't fly with me cause all the facts are never presented.

[LiveCoug]

That's it? Forgive me for not being persuaded by that. I mean, it was funny. But "oh, architects and engineers who disagree are just stupid and barely graduated" isn't really that great of an argument to me. I get that you believe it, but it lacks integrity somehow. I don't think you'd accept such an explanation if you were on the other side of a similar issue. You can't expect me to.

You still haven't told us what HAS persuaded you to believe the conspiracies. You have just told us that you DO. Why?

[Coach McGuirk]

That's it? Forgive me for not being persuaded by that.

[YOUTUBE]ljQMpgVY5mg[/YOUTUBE]

[creekster]

I bought the reason that was given in the first place for many years. I am no stranger to the explanation that the steel was heated by the fire, weakening the structure and causing it to fall. That explanation was given the very same day the towers fell. I guess what I have a hard time with is the claim that there have been fires in many other skyscrapers over the years and we've never seen them collapse. But that could be because of what was brought up earlier in the thread regarding a cement core, which the twin towers supposedly didn't have. I can't argue structural engineering, but I keep hearing on here that the overall consensus of ALL "experts" is that the towers came down the way they said they did on day 1. That doesn't explain this website to me.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

But to be fair, these guys may have some personal angle as well. That's always something that has to be considered. Just off the top of my head, the angle these guys could have probably isn't financial in nature, but I could see them simply having emotionally attached themselves to the alternate explanation which tends to reaffirm their preconceived belief in evil government or something, and so they believe junk science over good science at any cost. But the same test would have to be applied to the other side as well.

Are people already so emotionally invested in the original explanation, and so sold because they heard the same story on every major news program, programs that tend to disagree on everything else and now they agree, and an innocent hope that our country really does still have some good in it and essentially still belongs to "we the people" that THEY can't see the science objectively either? It's hard to say.

I will say this: For the first time in a long time I'm open to the possibility that that those planes DID bring down those towers as you all said. But what is the explanation on building 7? No planes broke through the outer hull and reached the core of that building. Does a fire really explain why THAT building collapsed at free fall speed, reminiscent of a demolition?

So I went to that web site and I cant make heads or tails of it; if you remove the self promotion, then there isn't much there. In fact, at this point, I cant see a single thing you have asserted. Are you suggesting that there is a problem with WTC 7? or what? What happened according to you? Were explosives set? IN all three buildings or just in WTC7? Come on, if you want tot talk about it, then tell us what you think did happen.

It is easy to sit around and moan about this stuff. But you seem to be unable to spell out exactly what this alternate theory is. Well?

[Indy Coug]

That's it? Forgive me for not being persuaded by that. I mean, it was funny. But "oh, architects and engineers who disagree are just stupid and barely graduated" isn't really that great of an argument to me. I get that you believe it, but it lacks integrity somehow. I don't think you'd accept such an explanation if you were on the other side of a similar issue. You can't expect me to.

What is your educational background and current profession? I'm curious how much your own learning either helps you to cut through all of the 9/11 science or leaves you vulnerable to those that would capitalize on your own ignorant misgivings.

[taekwondave]

.........88888888

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's it? Forgive me for not being persuaded by that.

Of course you aren't.

I have debated this topic endlessly over the last ten years and I just don't have the energy to rehash all of the technical arguments. I have learned that no matter what kind of evidence is presented, the response from the foil-capped crowd is always "Yeah, but what about ... ?". :igiveup:

Like oxcoug said, this is quite possibly the most discredited bullshit ever. Yet somehow it continues to live on. At this point I feel like Bill Engvall and his "here's your sign" bit. If nothing else, this gives us a simple mechanism for quickly identifying stupid people.

[Pheidippides]

There really are two ideas at work here:

1. The federal government is bought and paid for by international bankers whose financial interest run contrary to that of worldwide peace and national stability.

2. 9/11 was what is known as a false flag operation to incite public approval for measures that the bankers wanted their puppet politicians to take but knew they couldn't without some REALLY big incentives.

If you believe the first, you're likely to consider the second. Unfortunately if you're likely to consider the second you're also likely to BELIEVE the second, even if it isn't true. Like when a detective is trying to solve a case, it can be really hard to let go of your suspicion of the guy who seems to have the biggest motive to commit the crime, even if the evidence points elsewhere. Confirmation bias at work.

I am that guy. I admit it. But you guys are persuasive. I see motive but for the first time in a while I at least am doubting my previous findings as possibly a result of my horrible world view psychosis thingy. I need to probably take a break from writing though so I can actually read and watch everything you guys have laid out before me.

I'll let the engineers take the second question, as they've done admirably here. The first question is laughable at best, and as a finance guy myself (there are others more tapped in than I am, to be sure), I would love to know what evidence you have for #1.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's it? Forgive me for not being persuaded by that. I mean, it was funny. But "oh, architects and engineers who disagree are just stupid and barely graduated" isn't really that great of an argument to me. I get that you believe it, but it lacks integrity somehow. I don't think you'd accept such an explanation if you were on the other side of a similar issue. You can't expect me to.

Come on. You presented that website as evidence that there is significant support for the conspiracy angle in the engineering community. That is simply not true.