9/11 conspiracy Theories

[Inspector]

please don't lump me in with them.

Don't worry Tenure; I don't.

[Robert J. Kolker]

x

So basically it is my opinion that they provide indisputable evidence in this film that the official story propogated by our government as to what happened on 9/11 is false. I felt that even if you ruled out all of the eyewitness testimony, that the video footage, as well as scientific facts [ex: what tempurature titanium melts at] and historical precedent [skyscrapers don't collapse even after burning for 24 hours over many floors] gave their argument merit. I wanted to know if other intelligent people, like the ones that frequent this forum, had come to the same conclusion as me, and if not, I would appreciate hearing why. I felt quite ill after watching this film, as it's ramifications are pretty serious.

Whenever a disastrous attack or evil deed such as the wreck of WTC on Sept 11 happens, as sure as snow falls in the winter someone will trundle out the moral equivalent of the infamous Reichstag Fire which occurred in Germany in 1933.

Here is a blurb on it from the Wikipedia:

The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and 4000 Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".

Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the National Socialists eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as "Reichstag Fire Trial," namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it was either the government, the Mossad or the Jews that dunnit or maybe all of the preceding since the ZOG or the Israel Lobby secretly controls the country.

A similar claim was made concerning the destruction of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. It was the government who dunnit to create a pretext for various acts of tyranny.

In a not dissimilar fashion the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor was interpreted by some as a deliberate act of the government to hide the forthcoming attack from the military authorities at Pearl, so there would be a pretext for going to war. It was all a consipiracy, including the the fact that the aircraft carriers were not in port when the attack occurred. All part of a conspiracy etc. etc. etc.

William Randolph Hearst characterized the sinking of -The Maine- as a dastardly act by the Spanish government to provoke a war between the U.S. and Spain. There was later evidence uncovered that indicated -The Maine- might have been the victim of a boiler explosion, rather than a torpedo attack.

It never fails. Or almost never. I am surprised that the San Fransisco earthquake of 1906 was not blamed on the government or on the corporate trusts.

Bob Kolker

Edited September 8, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[Clawg]

I have no idea what this means - you're saying NORAD couldn't tell the difference between a training exercise and an actual, on-the-news, publicised attack on the country? What is your point?

Because of the training exercise the defense system was paralyzed. We heard multiple accounts from people at NEADS and NORAD that stated that they were confused if the plane crash was real or exercise because the exercises involved hijacking of planes and crashing a plane into a building (i.e. the same thing that happened later for real).

It is difficult to believe that this was just a coincidence. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that the terrorists knew of those exercises on that day and knew that they would hamper the defense capabilities of these agencies. We know of similiar things happening on the day of the London bombings. Government agencies did a drill simulating what would happen if bombs were going off in the tubes (at the same locations where they later really exploded). Again: The terrorists could have used this information to plan their own attack on the same day and in the same locations. If someone in the government had noticed them the only response they would get from his superior would be that it is part of the exercise.

Other than the plane loads of people involved?

I can't tell for sure what happened on the planes. Obviously they were hijacked. Probably some sort of gas was used and it is likely that hijackers were on the plane. Unfortunately we don't have any accounts about how they took 4 cockpits by surprise (i.e. before the pilots were able to send a distress signal).

It's not exactly good scientific practice to fill in gaps with any assumption pulled out of your arse. A reasoned guess can satisfy, but only until more knowledge is gained. My problem is, that people see a number of errors in the official story (of which there are) and jump from those errors, to the conclusion of the evil government plotting away with the entire thing.

I don't have much faith in the US government, and I don't find it ludicrous to hazard that they made many errors that day and tried to cover them up. What I find ludicrous is the leap made to full blown conspiracy.

Well, either you say "I don't know what happened" or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far.

It's not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn't explain very much while the 'conspiracy theory' explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.

What I find very strange about 9/11 are the flight paths.

How can we explain why the hijackers choose these flight paths? When you start in Dulles, Washington you don't need to fly to Indiana, turn around and fly back to Washington to hit the Pentagon. The longer you fly the higher is the risk that your flight is intercepted. Same goes for the other planes.

The reason is visible when you map the primary radar coverage of the US over the flights. Flight 11 and Flight 93 switches off its transponder exactly in an area where there is no primary radar coverage. Flight 175 meets flight 93 just when flight 175 switches off its transponder.

One theory that is discussed is that this (and only this) flight pattern allows for all planes to be switched by drones. Did it happen? I don't know, at least it would explain a number of things.

An article on this subject:

http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm

You mean to say that a tape of an aircraft crashing on the Pentagon, plus a few tons of airplane debris at the scene, do not corroborate the claim that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon?

I don't deny that a 'flying object' did hit the Pentagon, the evidence for that is VERY obvious.

Did the object have large wings like an airplane? I don't know, there is no visible evidence for that.

Hundreds of photos were released showing the debris at the Pentagon (in- and outside). It is safe to assume that we would - if it was flight 77 - see luggage, seats etc. on some pictures - anything that resembles a passenger plane.

The non-existence of photos showing clear evidence of a passenger plane is no proof of course, there is a chance that the photographers missed it or that everything was obliterated.

(And yes, I am aware of photos showing pieces metal that is painted red and blue. That is evidence that a 'red/blue flying object' hit the Pentagon - not that it was flight 77).

And what do you mean with "tape"? There is no tape showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. There is a tape that shows that *some flying object* hit the Pentagon.

Was it flight 77? I don't know. We can trace the flight path of flight 77 unitl it turned off its transponder at 8:56. No radar was able to locate the plane anymore until an object with the same transponder signal appeared near the Pentagon. Was it flight 77 just because it had the same transponder signal? Maybe.

What we know is the flight path in the last few minutes/seconds (e.g. the light poles that were knocked over).

If we believe (impossible to check) a group called "Pilots for 911 truth" ( http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ ), who got their hands on the flight data and were able to reproduce its contents, the data (height, angle) does not match with the flight path that was visible on the ground (light poles). An official investigation could clarify this issue.

Frankly: are you an engineer? Because I think you'd have to be in order to decide that there is something unusual about the crimping. Until I am presented with some pretty solid evidence - from an engineer who is not a kook who claims the government was behind 9/11 - my position is to say that there is nothing unusual about it. That must be what happens when you crash a jumbo jet into a building. I mean, seriously, how often does that happen?

You might want to hear what Danny Jowenko has to say. He is convinced that WTC1, WTC2 collapsed because of the planes but is also convinced that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. He is a dutch controlled-demolition expert.

(Part 1-3, ~8 min each)

[LaszloWalrus]

Well, either you say "I don't know what happened" or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far.

It's not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn't explain very much while the 'conspiracy theory' explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.

This is like saying that when one comes across a biological structure where one doesn't know its evolutionary history, the proper course is to embrace intelligent design since "[constructing] a theory that includes all facts found so far" is superior to saying "I don't know what happened" because intelligent design "explains some of the facts that the official story cannot."

[Clawg]

This is like saying that when one comes across a biological structure where one doesn't know its evolutionary history, the proper course is to embrace intelligent design since "[constructing] a theory that includes all facts found so far" is superior to saying "I don't know what happened" because intelligent design "explains some of the facts that the official story cannot."

(I assume with "intelligent design" you mean "man designed it in a laboratory" (like a virus or something))

The rational path of action in such a case is to say "I don't know" and research further - but not to act on an incomplete set of data.

The question is if you have the time to decide which alternative is true. In the case of my example of the virus you would have at least to take preventive measures - while you continue to research the matter.

[LaszloWalrus]

(I assume with "intelligent design" you mean "man designed it in a laboratory" (like a virus or something))

The rational path of action in such a case is to say "I don't know" and research further - but not to act on an incomplete set of data.

By "intelligent design," I mean the view (common among religious conservatives in the US) that the complexity of certain biological features necessitates that life was designed and created by God.

[Clawg]

By "intelligent design," I mean the view (common among religious conservatives in the US) that the complexity of certain biological features necessitates that life was designed and created by God.

Then your argument is a strawman argument because "intelligent design" doesn't explain anything and is by default not true.

[LaszloWalrus]

Then your argument is a strawman argument because "intelligent design" doesn't explain anything and is by default not true.

My point is that there are a lot of arbitrary "theories" one could spin that "explain" certain unexplained phenomenon, including the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[DarkWaters]

Well, either you say "I don't know what happened" or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far. It's not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn't explain very much while the 'conspiracy theory' explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.

A better answer here would be that you construct a theory that includes all facts obtained so far, does not contradict your present context of knowledge and does not offer an unnecessarily complicated explanation. Attempting to explain phenomena by asserting either an intervention of a supernatural deity, a magic bullet that violates the laws of kinematics and dynamics or the greatest conspiracy orchestrated by mankind over the past 1,000 years requires affirmative evidence.

Edited September 8, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Clawg]

My point is that there are a lot of arbitrary "theories" one could spin that "explain" certain unexplained phenomenon, including the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Yes, and how do we determine which one to use as a base of our actions?

Usually that is a job of the judiciary. The only trial so far was against Zacarias Moussaoui, all other accusations are unjustified (i.e. not proven in court). I'm no expert in US law concerning trials of deceased persons (defense could be a problem) but I think there should be a trial against all alleged 19 hijackers, Bin Laden (and maybe the government) and the documents used should be made public (not like the "trial" in the 9/11 commission where no oath was taken and no notes were made public when Bush and Cheney testified).

Without that the official version will remain a theory, just like the remote controlled airplanes and controlled demolition of WTC7 and we can only act on what seems to be the most likely theory.

A better answer here would be that you construct a theory that includes all facts obtained so far, does not contradict your present context of knowledge and does not offer an unnecessarily complicated explanation. A valid explanation for a mystery should not involve intervention of a supernatural deity, a magic bullet that violates the laws of kinematics and dynamics, matter that exists in two contradictory states or the greatest conspiracy orchestrated by mankind over the past 1,000 years. All of the aforementioned require affirmative evidence.

Yes, that would be the "don't know"-approach, because we cannot fill some of the gaps. Do determine what has happened we would need a proper trial.

[DarkWaters]

Yes, that would be the "don't know"-approach, because we cannot fill some of the gaps.

No, it is not the same. Simply claiming that we do not know here seems tantamount to arguing that "unless if we can explain everything, then we cannot know anything." If we accept this as a principle, can we rule out any of the following alternatives?

The 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by:

• Al Qaeda.
  
• The Bush Administration.
  
• Zionists.
  
• God.
  
• Freemasons.
  
• Simply by pure chance.
  
• Martians.
  

Even though I personally cannot explain every technical forensic inquiry that arose in the aftermath of 9/11, none of the issues raised are alarming enough to consider that Al Qaeda was not responsible for the attacks. If you want to bring this under question, you need more evidence.

[T]o determine what has happened we would need a proper trial.

I am probably misunderstanding the context of this sentence. Nevertheless, surely you do not believe that a legal trial infallibly determines what is metaphysically true? Just look at the prosecution of Galileo, the Scopes Monkey Trial or the O.J. Simpson trial.

[softwareNerd]

Clawg, Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? It's a pretty readable document, and available quite cheap too.

[nick s]

I picked the following paragraph up from a site at:

http://www.no911conspiracy.com/911commonsense.html

This web page says a lot of the common sense things I needed to say, but didn’t have the time. But especially this paragraph, and especially, especially the part I have highlighted.:

*******When you consider the number of individuals involved in planning and execution, the explosive experts, the demolition professionals, the building engineers, the missile launch and maintenance personnel, the air traffic controllers and air base personnel, the kidnappers who had to remove the civilians from the planes and kill or hide them forever, the aircraft maintenance personnel who modified the planes, the agencies or organizations that provided the explosives, missiles, and planes, the pilots or robotic flight programmers to fly the planes, and God knows who else… the number of direct conspirators would have to be in hundreds.*********

It is perfectly ludicrous to need to go into the science of explosives and whether the towers should have fallen after a jet fuel fire. Just look at that highlighted passage.

The conspiracy theory involving controlled explosions still needs airliners to have hit the towers of the WTC, as the eye-witness evidence is overwhelming, and the fact is that American and United airlines personnel know that their planes went missing. So, in order to use Boeing 767s to bring down the towers, they had to be the ones that left Boston that morning (American 11 and United 175), as the airlines reported them missing.

Where are the passengers? Where are their bodies? How did they get squirreled away, It couldn’t be at the airports, someone would have noticed, obviously.

Is anyone fool enough to believe that anyone had the ability to surreptitiously hijack those airliners, take the passengers somewhere, and fit the planes out with some kind of auto-guidance and direct them perfectly back to the two towers?

But forget all the technicalities argued over and over again. Forget all the other horrendous complexities that would be required to pull off this feat so perfectly that hardly anyone noticed. You only need one piece of this bizarre claim to fall down, that the WTC collapses were controlled explosions, and the whole thing becomes nonsense. And that is, where are the passengers of those planes?

Are the conspiracy inventors fool enough not to consider this? American and United Airlines personnel checked in 157 passengers and crew on those two planes. Where are they? How could they be disposed of without anyone knowing? It could not be done at Boston airport without masses of people noticing, and how in God’s name could those planes have landed somewhere, disembarked the passengers, and then been set off automatically to rendez-vous with the towers, and all in just over 45 minutes for each plane.

This is not a sparsely populated region. It would have to be a military runway to land fully fueled planes. There are thousands of people in this region that would be inquisitive enough to have noticed commercial airlines approaching and landing at a non-commercial airport. People who are interested in aviation notice the comings and goings of airliners all the time – I would know the moment a plane from my local airport deviated from its normal path, and there are thousands like me, especially in the USA.

And, again, where are the people? Where is just one witness to the disappearance of all those passengers?

This makes nonsense of any government conspiracy regarding the hits on the WTC, and anyone with half a brain would have to agree. So, it also makes nonsense of the other two hijackings, because it is ridiculous to think that with an Al Qaida operation on the WTC that some other outfit (the government) would be doing a couple of similar acts on the same day.

Come on, folks, this debacle is so ridiculous, the only reason anyone with any sense comes back on these conspiracy theories is the disbelief that anyone could be fool enough to think anyone could pull of something so massively complex; something that would have required years and years of planning followed by 100% faultless execution.

And if it was pulled off with controlled detonations and guided planes, where are those passengers?

Hi all, as this is my first time posting on the forum let me first say that while full time school and work have left me with little time to get involved in discussions, I have been reading the forum for quite some time and find it to be a fantastic resource, as well as just truly enjoyable reading. I have great amount of respect for many of the regular posters here, and definitely have found a higher signal to noise ratio than on any other forum I've ever visited. Thank you for that!

I watched this film today, and found it disturbing enough to want to investigate other peoples opinions of it. If you google Loose Change you will find several places to stream or download the film; it's about an hour and twenty minutes long. I would prefer that you didn't post a reply here unless you've watched the film. In any case I highly recommend taking the time to view it, although I must warn you there is some pretty disturbing footage - watching some of it was pretty difficult, as I don't think I'd seen much of it since shortly after the event occurred.

So basically it is my opinion that they provide indisputable evidence in this film that the official story propogated by our government as to what happened on 9/11 is false. I felt that even if you ruled out all of the eyewitness testimony, that the video footage, as well as scientific facts [ex: what tempurature titanium melts at] and historical precedent [skyscrapers don't collapse even after burning for 24 hours over many floors] gave their argument merit. I wanted to know if other intelligent people, like the ones that frequent this forum, had come to the same conclusion as me, and if not, I would appreciate hearing why. I felt quite ill after watching this film, as it's ramifications are pretty serious.

[nick s]

If what hit WTC was not planes, where are the planes? There has to be planes because United and American airlines lost them? The conspracy has to involve them, doesn't it. Or are you really fool enough to think masses of United and American personnel were in on the thing. And if it involves them, where are the passengers? How were they squirreled away? It is unbelievable that anyone could think it possible to pull off something so complex, and so seemless.

Just give it a little thought and you will come to your senses.

Because of the training exercise the defense system was paralyzed. We heard multiple accounts from people at NEADS and NORAD that stated that they were confused if the plane crash was real or exercise because the exercises involved hijacking of planes and crashing a plane into a building (i.e. the same thing that happened later for real).

It is difficult to believe that this was just a coincidence. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that the terrorists knew of those exercises on that day and knew that they would hamper the defense capabilities of these agencies. We know of similiar things happening on the day of the London bombings. Government agencies did a drill simulating what would happen if bombs were going off in the tubes (at the same locations where they later really exploded). Again: The terrorists could have used this information to plan their own attack on the same day and in the same locations. If someone in the government had noticed them the only response they would get from his superior would be that it is part of the exercise.

I can't tell for sure what happened on the planes. Obviously they were hijacked. Probably some sort of gas was used and it is likely that hijackers were on the plane. Unfortunately we don't have any accounts about how they took 4 cockpits by surprise (i.e. before the pilots were able to send a distress signal).

Well, either you say "I don't know what happened" or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far.

It's not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn't explain very much while the 'conspiracy theory' explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.

What I find very strange about 9/11 are the flight paths.

How can we explain why the hijackers choose these flight paths? When you start in Dulles, Washington you don't need to fly to Indiana, turn around and fly back to Washington to hit the Pentagon. The longer you fly the higher is the risk that your flight is intercepted. Same goes for the other planes.

The reason is visible when you map the primary radar coverage of the US over the flights. Flight 11 and Flight 93 switches off its transponder exactly in an area where there is no primary radar coverage. Flight 175 meets flight 93 just when flight 175 switches off its transponder.

One theory that is discussed is that this (and only this) flight pattern allows for all planes to be switched by drones. Did it happen? I don't know, at least it would explain a number of things.

An article on this subject:

http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm

I don't deny that a 'flying object' did hit the Pentagon, the evidence for that is VERY obvious.

Did the object have large wings like an airplane? I don't know, there is no visible evidence for that.

Hundreds of photos were released showing the debris at the Pentagon (in- and outside). It is safe to assume that we would - if it was flight 77 - see luggage, seats etc. on some pictures - anything that resembles a passenger plane.

The non-existence of photos showing clear evidence of a passenger plane is no proof of course, there is a chance that the photographers missed it or that everything was obliterated.

(And yes, I am aware of photos showing pieces metal that is painted red and blue. That is evidence that a 'red/blue flying object' hit the Pentagon - not that it was flight 77).

And what do you mean with "tape"? There is no tape showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. There is a tape that shows that *some flying object* hit the Pentagon.

Was it flight 77? I don't know. We can trace the flight path of flight 77 unitl it turned off its transponder at 8:56. No radar was able to locate the plane anymore until an object with the same transponder signal appeared near the Pentagon. Was it flight 77 just because it had the same transponder signal? Maybe.

What we know is the flight path in the last few minutes/seconds (e.g. the light poles that were knocked over).

If we believe (impossible to check) a group called "Pilots for 911 truth" ( http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ ), who got their hands on the flight data and were able to reproduce its contents, the data (height, angle) does not match with the flight path that was visible on the ground (light poles). An official investigation could clarify this issue.

You might want to hear what Danny Jowenko has to say. He is convinced that WTC1, WTC2 collapsed because of the planes but is also convinced that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. He is a dutch controlled-demolition expert.

(Part 1-3, ~8 min each)

[nick s]

Just some more.

If people missed the first hit on the north tower, perhaps due to the surprise of the thing, don't you consider that thousands would be watching and filming when the second plane flew the circuit and hit. Do you really believe that nobody could see and identify a 767. I and many other aviation enthusiasts, and there would be thousands in the Manhatten area, can recognize a plane and its livery, even when the thing is flying at 30,000 feet, let alone less than 1000.

Please stop this nonsense. You can prove a bumble bee can't fly if you work at it. And people have. But a 2 year old will tell you it can fly.

If what hit WTC was not planes, where are the planes? There has to be planes because United and American airlines lost them? The conspracy has to involve them, doesn't it. Or are you really fool enough to think masses of United and American personnel were in on the thing. And if it involves them, where are the passengers? How were they squirreled away? It is unbelievable that anyone could think it possible to pull off something so complex, and so seemless.

Just give it a little thought and you will come to your senses.

[softwareNerd]

Based on this story, those who want to investigate the falling towers, will get a chance to read the verdict in an upcoming issue of "Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

[Steve D'Ippolito]

THis is to say NOTHING of the amount of time and preparation it takes to do a controlled demolition of a building. It takes many days to set up the explosives and you have to tear the sheetrock and/or plaster off the walls to expose the beams, run miles of cable.... I think the people who work in WTC 7 just might have noticed this activity on Monday the 10th.

Ludicrous.

[Inspector]

Nick S's post wins the thread. That is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to, but had not the time or patience to explicate.

Now enough of this nonsense! It is 9/11/07, and we shouldn't have to be answering this kind of lunacy.

[Doug Plumb]

9/11 involved an attack that was co-incident with an identical excercise.

London 7/7 also had an identical excercise happening at the same time for bombs going off at the exact same time and places. (see Alex Jones Terrorstorm for video testimony of intelligence officers saying this)

The OKC bombing also had an excercise going on at the same time. Bombs were found in the building as shown on the local news networks but this was never shown on mainstream (See Alex Jones 9/11 Road to Tyranny to see these clips).

Jones movies are free on Google.

One may argue that these excercises gave the terrorists opportunity, but why is it that no one from the inside was arrested ?

I believe 9/11 was an inside job due to the manner and speed at which the buildings collapsed. They collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance and this is impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics which states that objects fall through the path of least resistance. Therefore for the center axis of the buildings to be the path of least resistance they had to be blown out of the way with explosives.

There is a far greater number of scientists and engineers that support the inside job hypothesis than support the official version. Only a handful of scientists, engineers and intelligence people support the official version of events but the numbers of the same type of professionals that support the hypothesis that 9/11 was an inside job number in the many hundreds. You can see them here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ and here www.ae911truth.org and here http://911scholars.org/ . There is some overlap - ie many of the people (perhaps all) that are on scholars for 9/11 truth or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are also listed on Patriots for 9/11 truth. Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, the people here have stuck their necks out to express their beliefs and based on this they deserve a great deal of respect. It takes no courage for an engineer or scientist to speak on behalf of the official version but few do. Its scientific ludicrous and that is why.

I can debunk any one of the Popular Mechanics points. They are based on straw men and sometimes outright lies or violations of the fundamental principles of science. Official version support is always based on lies, the NIST report was always changing theories.

I have a degree is electrical engineering but have spoken to many Phd structural and physics people regarding my hypothesis about the second law of thermodynamics, they tell me that I am correct and that it does not require an expert to see this.

I am interested in evidence that supports the official version because I do not want to believe this. People forget that the official version requires evidence too.

I would like to debate based on evidence, not innuendos and insults. The last time I debated 9/11 I was accused of being a wife beater ( I am not married). I hope the people on this forum are better than that, but this is often the tactic of people who wish to avoid a discussion based on evidence

[Jake_Ellison]

They collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance and this is impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics which states that objects fall through the path of least resistance. Therefore for the center axis of the buildings to be the path of least resistance they had to be blown out of the way with explosives.

Objects move in the direction of the force that acts on them. In this case, the buildings could only move down, because the only force that acted on them was gravity.

Also, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what you're saying. It instead is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. When applied to physics (hence the name), the law states that "Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature." (Rudolf Clausius, the man who came up with the second law of TD)

So what the Hell are you talking about?

There is a far greater number of scientists and engineers that support the inside job hypothesis than support the official version.

There are exactly zero scientists and actual working engineers, as far as I heard, that support any version of your theory, as far as it relates to their respective fields.

For instance, not a single physicist or engineer will ever support your moronic claim that the towers should've fallen to the side, because of "the second law of thermodynamics".

P.S. You sound like a fella' who beats his wife.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[K-Mac]

You can watch any one of the many documentaries on television about the engineering of the towers and the morning they fell, and it will provide the lay person with a rational explanation of why they fell as they did. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. This conspiracy theory crap is just that...crap.

[gags]

Anyone who cites the Alex Jones videos as providing reliable proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy is a nut.... and possibly a wife beater.

[Space Patroller]

Anyone who cites the Alex Jones videos as providing reliable proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy is a nut.... and possibly a wife beater.

In this case there is something worse than Alex Jones. At least he's a nut on the right.

I left starship_excalibur. a purported Objectivist and sci-fi Yahoo group with the sci-fi being a bit too Star Trekkish for my liking, becasue they supported Rosie O'Donnell's leftist piece of the Crock. Plus put forth the idea that a "small H-bomb" was used and linking to a site that allegedly showed how such could be made. Now for those who need to know. The H-bomb uses a fission bomb as a trigger. It has been the dream of those who dream of such things to develop the "pure fusion" bomb with yields of up to 2,000 megatons.

Conspiracies "work" by setting the process of reasonin in reverse. In the world of the sane, you reason from the known to the unknown. the conspiracy works by reasoning from the unknown to invalidate the known. To get a feel for it, listen to Art Bell, he's a master at it.

[Clawg]

There are conspiracies of private people, government corruption and other forms of crime all over the place. The question is if one should take time to look at them, let government institutions deal with them or dismiss them.

I researched it and I don't particularly see how there was any siginificant action done within the last 8 years to improve the situation, i.e. decrease the probability for another successful attack by internal restructuring the institutions that failed. And that should be the main objective. This can be done only be answering the remaining questions.

In order to achieve that, people have to make right political decisions (e.g. vote for the right people who can deal with the details). Thus one has to check how the government is dealing with the issues at some point.

I think it is irrational to simply dismiss open questions about incidents like 9/11.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Clawg

[gags]

I looked through most of it and I don't particularly see how there was any siginificant action done within the last 8 years to improve the situation, i.e. decrease the probability for another successful attack by internal restructuring the institutions that failed.

Here in the US, there has been quite abit of activity. Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has been created, screening of passengers boarding airliners has been enhanced, electronic surveillance of suspects has increased, counter-terrorism operations have been stepped up, etc... Of course, none of this guarantees that we won't be hit again. To the contrary, I think most people believe another attack is almost inevitable.