Could this settle what happend on 9/11 once and for all?

There is alot of people who say 9/11 was a demolition job.

I heard about these computer simulations that you can test out designs for cars and for gadgets and see if they work. You can do it all in a computer simulation and it saves invetors lots of time because instead of having to make a model of the design they can make a virutal one and test it out in the "virtual world".

Why not use one of those computer simulation things and test out the 9/11 scenario and see how it plays out? You would probably need the blue prints for the WTC's and the Boeing 747 and add in variables like how fast was the plane going and how much gasoline was in the tanks etc... but could it work?

make a computer simulation of the attacks and see how it plays out in the "virtual world". If we get the same results in the simulation then it could be thus concluded that 9/11 was not a demolition job and if the buildings don't end up collapsing in the simulation then that would give more steam to the demolition theory.

What do you guys think? Has anyone else though of this and tried it out?

Computer simulations are never perfect and ridiculous conspiracy theories never die.

They are never perfect but they can shed some light on the subject. Thats why i never said a computer simulation would setle the matter at hand 100% .

I think it's more of a question of whether it's worth it. As it is, every point raised by the average person (key word: average) has been disproved by real demolition experts. I think the best point that has been raised in regard to this debate was by maddox... How is it possible that the government has enough intelligence to orchestrate the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, silencing thousands of construction workers, demolition experts, people working in, around, or somehow involved with airplanes, all government officials involved in it, etc., and be able to do this with military and perfect precision.... but they can't silence some college chum who's broadcasting some conspiracy video from his dorm room (loose change). I mean honestly, if they could kill thousands of people at a whim, then killing one person very easily should be absolutely no problem so as to preserve the integrity of their plan. Or at least shut down his website and such. To me that just makes no sense AT ALL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

How is it possible that the government has enough intelligence to orchestrate the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, silencing thousands of construction workers, demolition experts, people working in, around, or somehow involved with airplanes, all government officials involved in it, etc., and be able to do this with military and perfect precision.... but they can't silence some college chum who's broadcasting some conspiracy video from his dorm room (loose change). I mean honestly, if they could kill thousands of people at a whim, then killing one person very easily should be absolutely no problem so as to preserve the integrity of their plan. Or at least shut down his website and such. To me that just makes no sense AT ALL.

---

I'm still surprised at how people can't figure out the answer to this question.

If you were a branch of government, and somebody put up a website about you that claimed you had a hand in the biggest (alleged) conspiracy ever, and you are trying to create the illusion that that person is a crackpot, and doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and his theory is so outlandish that nobody in their right mind would believe him...

...why would you kill/silence him? :wtf:

You might as well just start up your own website saying "Hey, maybe that kid was on to something!!" and further fuel the theorists' suspicions. It's basically accomplishing the same thing.

If anything, I'd say that's the weakest argument against the possibility of it being an inside job.

Good point. If you kill/silence him, then the people would think that maybe he was right.

O is right about killing the person. but wasup is right that the government could not keep so many people who would need to be involved in this quiet.

On to the topic of this thread, I believe a computer simulation could add some food for thought on the subject..though as you said, it wouldnt prove anything, just give one side more ammo

But you can't necessarily say that the simulation would be correct, so no-one gets more "ammo".

Problems here:

- There were a hundred million variables involved in this.
- The planes were identified as: 757's/One C52 Hercules and one heavy Bomber craft.
- Computer simulations are not used to determine WHAT DID happen, but what MIGHT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

- Computer simulations are not used to determine WHAT DID happen, but what MIGHT, or what DID.

---

Uhmm......that makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Uhmm......that makes no sense.

---

:?

I was thinking more in the initial stages. Obviously if the person is already "famous" and very well-known killing the person would be a bad decision, but if the person is not very well-known yet, then it seems much easier.

But yeah, does anyone really think they can manage to keep thousands of people quiet who were involved in it? I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

Jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel.

...But all ther papers and nice wooden desks along with human corpses and chairs inside the planes not to mention the fact the plane HIT the building could attribute to the collapse?

They were built to withstand a plane smashing into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

---

Yep. Imagine the same scenario happening in regard to a brain surgery report. Amateurs on the internet go off about problems in a brain surgery report concerning the biggest news story of all time, yet 99.9999% of brain surgeons have nothing to say about it to anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

They were built to withstand a plane smashing into them.

---

:chuckle:

A 757 travelling at upwards of 600 knots can take out anything short of reinforced concrete given the weight and explosives.

(Link)

Some stuff we might want to consider. I'm reading now.

Wikipedia hardly counts for anything past dates things happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

I was thinking more in the initial stages. Obviously if the person is already "famous" and very well-known killing the person would be a bad decision, but if the person is not very well-known yet, then it seems much easier.

---

He was never famous. He just had a website up. It takes time for knowledge of any given website to be relayed to the government, not matter what the content - more time than it takes for the general public to become aware of the site through sources such as word-of-mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

---

Not true. The truth is that there are professional architects and engineers and people in other fields that speak out about it. The problem is that anti-theorists state that, no matter how many are presented, it is only a small fraction of the whole and, therefore, insignificant. That's if they choose to acknowledge the existence of the professionals at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Not true. The truth is that there are professional architects and engineers and people in other fields that speak out about it. The problem is that anti-theorists state that, no matter how many are presented, it is only a small fraction of the whole and, therefore, insignificant. That's if they choose to acknowledge the existence of the professionals at all.

---

If it were really a significant percentage, what they are saying would be the biggest issue in the world right now. It still would not mean that the government planted the bombs. It would seem that the terrorists also planted bombs at the WTC just like terrorists did in 1993.

So far, if one wants to be honest, the only supported position by science has been the controlled demolition hypothesis. Why is this the only scientifically supported hypothesis? Because the government funded studies did not analyze the mechanism that caused the sudden, rapid and total collapses.

The NIST investigation was flawed in that it only aimed to try to explain the initiation of collapse, and not what happened after the first instant of support load failure. NIST did everything to stack the experiments against the models being able to survive. But none of their test models could cause a duplicate structure to fail under greatly exaggerated conditions.

Now, how many scientists have written academic literature in favor of the use of explosives at the WTC? How many have been challenged by defenders of the government? Answering these questions will go a long way to finding th truth.

WTC7: Collapses in Seconds and in a manner Indistinguishable from Controled Demolition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

So far, if one wants to be honest, the only supported position by science has been the controlled demolition hypothesis. Why is this the only scientifically supported hypothesis? Because the government funded studies did not analyze the mechanism that caused the sudden, rapid and total collapses.

The NIST investigation was flawed in that it only aimed to try to explain the initiation of collapse, and not what happened after the first instant of support load failure. NIST did everything to stack the experiments against the models being able to survive. But none of their test models could cause a duplicate structure to fail under greatly exaggerated conditions.

Now, how many scientists have written academic literature in favor of the use of explosives at the WTC? How many have been challenged by defenders of the government? Answering these questions will go a long way to finding th truth.

WTC7: Collapses in Seconds and in a manner Indistinguishable from Controled Demolition.

---

How many scientists think the issue is even worth mentioning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it were really a significant percentage, what they are saying would be the biggest issue in the world right now.

---

While a reasonable assumption, I think there are more factors that come into play (in respect to both how much/little the issue is talked about and our - including your - perception of how much/little the issue is talked about) than your assumption takes into consideration. For what it's worth; I believe that the issue is talked about much more than you acknowledge, and I, myself, know. I've seen plenty of articles that say speculation, worldwide, about 9/11 being an inside job is very high (and no, not just by average Joes). Of course none of this is conclusive, and I don't try to present it as such, but you and I obviously have two different viewpoints on how much credible speculation their actually is.

I'm not about to sit here and say that just because I haven't heard a certain, arbitrary, amount of people speak out about something is any indication that it's not a widely talked about issue. (especially something that would be so widely debated that any mainstream media source would be basically out of their minds to run - and you can't even begin to deny that newspapers and mediate outlets are above keeping material that seems this inflammatory, and possibly career-ruining, out.)

I, personally, have seen enough speculation within my limited range to consider it a serious issue. Perhaps you have a special perspective to where you can say that the number of professionals in the respective fields that have spoken out are 0.0000000000001% (figuratively speaking, of course), but I simply don't have access to anything that would give me those sorts of figures - aside from an assumption that "well, if there were more, I would have heard about it," which is not a line of thinking that I follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How many scientists think the issue is even worth mentioning?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

But yeah, does anyone really think they can manage to keep thousands of people quiet who were involved in it? I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

---

Actually let me correct you guys for a sec.

How about The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth?

Oh ya and here is a seminar done by one of their prominent members: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

Contrary to what you said there are people who work in this type in the field who are speaking out about what happend on 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I, personally, have seen enough speculation within my limited range to consider it a serious issue. Perhaps you have a special perspective to where you can say that the number of professionals in the respective fields that have spoken out are 0.0000000000001% (figuratively speaking, of course), but I simply don't have access to anything that would give me those sorts of figures - aside from an assumption that "well, if there were more, I would have heard about it," which is not a line of thinking that I follow.

---

If it turned out that talk of a 9/11 WTC demolition has been on the level it has but is actually true and the truth of it has been noticeable by large numbers amateurs on the internet, it would be as shocking as learning that archaeologists found Noah's Ark and Jesus has been living in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Actually let me correct you guys for a sec.
How about The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth?

Oh ya and here is a seminar done by one of their prominent members: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

Contrary to what you said there are people who work in this type in the field who are speaking out about what happend on 9/11.

---

Yes, there are a few in the world. That does not get past my point. If you could notice that the WTC was blown up on 9/11, EVERY demolition expert in the entire world would be able to notice it.

If it was a demo, why not go public about it? Lying for no reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it turned out that talk of a 9/11 WTC demolition has been on the level it has but is actually true and the truth of it has been noticeable by large numbers amateurs on the internet, it would be as shocking as learning that archaeologists found Noah's Ark and Jesus has been living in it.

---

I can only respond to that statement by saying everything I've said before it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, there are a few in the world. That does not get past my point. If you could notice that the WTC was blown up on 9/11, EVERY demolition expert in the entire world would be able to notice it.

---

At first you guys say no people who know what their talking about IE experts are speaking out about it, now when i provide you with proof that there are such experts speaking out about it you counter me and say there are not enough speaking out. How about watch his seminar about 9/11 and hear what he has to say before you pass judgement. A river starts out as a trickle and then it gains momentum.

Peace Out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I can only respond to that statement by saying everything I've said before it.

---

Everything you said before it was about a shocking situation that defies the laws of human nature. The bigger information is, the faster and further it travels. A finding that the biggest news story in history involves an untrue account would travel farther and faster than any word of mouth ever has. If you and Dragonoverlord can notice that such information exists by watching the biggest news story in history on television, so can EVERY demoliton expert in the world, with no exceptions. The idea that the biggest news story in history is false and that its falsehood is noticed by amateurs all over the internet but is still not the talk of every town as a result of what every demolition expert in the world notices is something I cannot realistically place within the boundaries of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

At first you guys say no people who know what their talking about IE experts are speaking out about it, now when i provide you with proof that there are such experts speaking out about it you counter me and say there are not enough speaking out.

---

I never once said that "no" experts support the demolition claim. I know there are some that do, and I have never said otherwise. That does not change the fact that every demoliton expert in the world has the ability to notice in the video what you supposedly notice. The experts who support the claim are a microscopic minority comprised of attention whores. They and their whole legion of amateur supporters are not noticing something the vast masses of experts are not noticing, and the large scale noticing that would really happen would cause the biggest chatter ever. Even stupid rumors spark up more chatter than this issue has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Everything you said before it was about a shocking situation that defies the laws of human nature. The bigger information is, the faster and further it travels. A finding that the biggest news story in history involves an untrue account would travel farther and faster than any word of mouth ever has. If you and Dragonoverlord can notice that such information exists by watching the biggest news story in history on television, so can EVERY demoliton expert in the world, with no exceptions. The idea that the biggest news story in history is false and that its falsehood is noticed by amateurs all over the internet but is still not the talk of every town as a result of what every demolition expert in the world notices is something I cannot realistically place within the boundaries of reality.

---

And as far and as fast as information travels, I don't think I have access to the opinions of every demolition expert in the world. I think you greatly overstate how easy it would be to get the information that many demolitions experts are skeptical, unless you have direct access to them, or the news outlets are brave enough to report them. Frankly, even with all of the people that (even you acknowledge) ARE skeptical about it, I have heard nothing from mainstream media about even those skeptics, because any outlet that runs a story which is so much speculation is taking a gamble.

With the nature of the "information" as debatable as it is, I don't know of any demolition expert that would put his career/reputation on the line to try to prove something that can't be proven through video alone. "It seems fishy to me" is not enough to go On Record, on any news outlet, as saying about this issue, because you'll be fighting the most emotionally-charged majority in the history of the United States, and unless you come with irrefutable evidence (you know, like the wreckage that the Administration was so quick to clear out before an investigation could be done) you're not going to get anything out of it.

But, fundamentally, it's speculation on both our sides. You see as it unrealistic, and I simply see a rationale. I don't think your argument has been substantial enough to make me believe it's impossible, and I'm sure you feel the same way...so...*shrugs*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I never once said that "no" experts support the demolition claim. I know there are some that do, and I have never said otherwise. That does not change the fact that every demoliton expert in the world has the ability to notice in the video what you supposedly notice. The experts who support the claim are a microscopic minority comprised of attention whores. They and their whole legion of amateur supporters are not noticing something the vast masses of experts are not noticing, and the large scale noticing that would really happen would cause the biggest chatter ever. Even stupid rumors spark up more chatter than this issue has.

---

Look man, he came to his conclusion using facts and logic, if you took alook at the video he explained himself quitewell and to denounce him and his group as attention whores is a bit premature considering you probably didn't even watch his video nor are you an authoraty on the subject at all.

It doesn't hurt to look at two sides of the story,there are alot of enginers,architects and others who support the theory. Obviously they are highly educated in these matters and to denounce them like you have as morons and attention whores is a bit over the top. You never even listend to their side of the story (the video i gave a link to) yet you are so quick to pronounce them as idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And as far and as fast as information travels, I don't think I have access to the opinions of every demolition expert in the world. I think you greatly overstate how easy it would be to get the information that many demolitions experts are skeptical, unless

---

You don't have to get reports from every demolition expert. Noticing the phenomenon I am talking about does not require my first hand information from any demoliton experts or their contact with the media. I am talking about a chatter phenomenon that would be a gigantic monster, and it is not happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Look man, he came to his conclusion using facts and logic, if you took alook at the video he explained himself quitewell and to denounce him and his group as attention whores is a bit premature considering you probably didn't even watch his video nor are you an authoraty on the subject at all.

It doesn't hurt to look at two sides of the story,there are alot of enginers,architects and others who support the theory. Obviously they are highly educated in these matters and to denounce them like you have as morons and attention whores is a bit over the top. You never even listend to their side of the story (the video i gave a link to) yet you are so quick to pronounce them as idiots.

---

I have seen lots of videos on it, and I have read a lot of articles and forum posts on it. I have also seen people argue against them in videos and articles. There comes a point where I have to admit that I know very little about demolition and cannot argue much about those details. However, what I do understand is social psychology, and I know about the chatter phenomenon that exists on a major level in human nature, and I understand that it is not happening in regard to this situation. Try to vividly visualize what things would be like if every demoliton expert in the world was using his credibility to get his friends and family members to understand that the World Trade Center was bombed to the ground. Think about that. Can you imagine what social circle talk would be like and how it would escalate to something astronomical? What would be happening is not happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel.

---

This is the worst argument used by conspiracy theorists. The building didn't drip into a pool of steel and concrete, it collapsed. Everything loses strength before it becomes a liquid, in this case the steel did not melt but lost a significant amount of strength, leading to a structural failure.

I love how the site for architects and engineers supporting the idea of conspiracy is down. At the moment I don't have the time to watch the video, though I'd love a link to text on how the towers were brought down via demolition.
I'm studying engineering and physics and I'm another person who does not currently support the idea of a demolition job, though I'm open to information on how it's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You don't have to get reports from every demolition expert. Noticing the phenomenon I am talking about does not require my first hand information from any demoliton experts or their contact with the media. I am talking about a chatter phenomenon that would be a gigantic monster, and it is not happening.

---

Like I said; reasonable though it may be, that entire argument is built upon assumptions. 1) That there is no chatter. 2) That the chatter, should it exist, would be so much bigger than it already is (because, let's face it, there is chatter, just not enough to meet your arbitrary standard.) 3) That you actually have an accurate idea of how much/little chatter there actually is, with your (our) limited perspective on the phenomenon - this being a story that any major media outlet would practically be lynching itself if it ran on nothing more than suspicions, however credible.

From my point of view, you could say it as many times as you want, as confident as you want, but you simply can't do it without it being in the form of an assumption. It is in that fact that I not only leave room for doubt (that is; taking the possibility of the conspiracy seriously), but actually work to find rationale for that doubt, which I believe I have - at least to the point where I don't like dismissing things on a priori assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

I love how the site for architects and engineers supporting the idea of conspiracy is down.

---

He gave you the wrong link: Here it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

I'm studying engineering and physics and I'm another person who does not currently support the idea of a demolition job, though I'm open to information on how it's possible.

---

What are your feelings on the odd nature of the uniformity of the building 7 collapse?

And, to be clear, I don't necessarily support the theories of it being a demolition job as much as I used to (the twin towers, at least), though I'm not completely sold that it wasn't - due to so many things that seem anomalous, about the collapse. Building 7, though, is about the most suspicious thing I've ever seen in my life, as is the fact that the Administration tried to divert attention from it, and even left it out of the 9/11 Report.

Let's not forget I was standing outside with friends in Washington D.C. 5 minutes from the pentagon and I didn't hear a plane... Trust me, I would've been a bit jumpy hearing a plane after hearing the news of the two towers...

What happened to those 80 confiscated security tapes they quickly scooped up and classified, anyway?

Weird huh?:whyme:

At first everyone thought it was terrorists. Even myself. It wasn't until time had passed and we saw the footage time and time again that you start to see things not adding up. If it were such an open and shut case, it would've been open and shut. I don't deny the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole or the Oklahoma City bombing. In this case, however, there are too many anomalies to be able to draw a conclusion that our government didn't at least have some foreknowledge of this event happening, if not orchestration on some level.

The quickly assembled list of high jackers... the passport found in the wreckage... high jackers still being found alive... confiscated tapes... building 7... etc... etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Like I said; reasonable though it may be, that entire argument is built upon assumptions. 1) That there is no chatter. 2) That the chatter, should it exist, would be so much bigger than it already is (because, let's face it, there is chatter, just not enough to meet your arbitrary standard.) 3) That you actually have an accurate idea of how much/little chatter there actually is, with your (our) limited perspective on the phenomenon - this being a story that any major media outlet would practically be lynching itself if it ran on nothing more than suspicions, however credible.

From my point of view, you could say it as many times as you want, as confident as you want, but you simply can't do it without it being in the form of an assumption. It is in that fact that I not only leave room for doubt (that is; taking the possibility of the conspiracy seriously), but actually work to find rationale for that doubt, which I believe I have - at least to the point where I don't like dismissing things on a priori assumption.

---

The notion that the sun will come up tomorrow is an assumption, but it is a very logical one. In fact, if the sun did not come up tomorrow, it would be the strangest thing that has ever happened to us. It is an assumption that if Boston had been nuked last week, we would have heard about it, but it is rock solid. If Boston had been nuked last week and you and I did not know about it, considering the public chatter phenomenon alone, it would be really insane. The fact that something is an assumption does not automatically equate it with an off the wall idea you pull out of your ass. My "assumption" is rock solid.

Also, you are right that there is chatter, but there is not the kind or level of chatter that would exist. Not even close. The chatter is mostly the noises of hardcore Bush haters thinking they know all of the ins and outs of demolition. The chatter that would really be happening if their demlolition claims were true and so obvious would have much more credibility and be much more widespread. Imagine what things would be like if every surgeon in the United States convinced all of his friends and relatives that the government brain surgery report concerning a shot to President Barack Obama's head is obviously a lie. We would have something many times bigger than Republican hating liberals saying what sounds crazy to most people. I do not claim to have travelled to the parallel universe where that is happening, but I do know how credible information travels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The notion that the sun will come up tomorrow is an assumption, but it is a very logical one. In fact, if the sun did not come up tomorrow, it would be the strangest thing that has ever happened to us. It is an assumption that if Boston had been nuked last week, we would have heard about it, but it is rock solid. If Boston had been nuked last week and you and I did not know about it, considering the public chatter phenomenon alone, it would be really insane. The fact that something is an assumption does not automatically equate it with an off the wall idea you pull out of your ass. My "assumption" is rock solid.

Also, you are right that there is chatter, but there is not the kind or level of chatter that would exist. Not even close. The chatter is mostly the noises of hardcore Bush haters thinking they know all of the ins and outs of demolition. The chatter that would really be happening if their demlolition claims were true and so obvious would have much more credibility and be much more widespread. Imagine what things would be like if every surgeon in the United States convinced all of his friends and relatives that the government brain surgery report concerning a shot to President Barack Obama's head is obviously a lie. We would have something many times bigger than Republican hating liberals saying what sounds crazy to most people. I do not claim to have travelled to the parallel universe where that is happening, but I do know how credible information travels.

---

I'm not going to go too far into how much I don't think how much I disagree with your 'the sun will come up tomorrow' analogy, other than to say "How many times have you seen the sun come up? Now, how many times have you tracked the level of chatter spread in a situation exactly like this?" The two assumptions aren't even comparable, and I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant, as I said I had to find a "rationale for doubt" before I'm willing to dismiss something on assumption.

The whole reason that we're having this conversation is that the information is not "that obvious." It's debatable, and even those professionals that are calling for further inquiry are doing just that - calling for inquiry. Things seem fishy and they would like a further investigation of it. That's all. With all your hyperbole, you're acting as if everyone who has brought up the theory is wearing Anti-Administration T-Shirts with big foam fingers that say "Go Al-Qaeda!!11 I saw it! I know it was a bomb! The Administration is lying!! I'd bet my wife and six kids on it!" They see things that don't seem like they add up and would like to see it further investigated. To say you can gauge how fast chatter would spread, with the majority of the credible chatter being of that nature, is (IMHO) a stretch of imagination. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'd be damned surprised.

Arguements like, 'if they really blew it up people would of said something' are stupid. Especially since you are using it as an arguement that what people say don't count. Obviously if you discount everyone supporting the idea then there isn't anyone left supporting.

You say no scientist agree with it so its not true, which is a lie. There are some scientist who believe it. Theres also demolition people who believe it, and there are people from every group who believe it. Just like you have people in the scene who said they heard explosion, and families of people who died who think the government is lying to them.

If you are going to argue stuff like this, you need to do it with information and facts. Saying the government can't hide secrets isn't a fact.

Its kind of like fluoride in the water supply. If fluoride was really a waste by product that is toxic to humans, and it was being dumped into the water. Wouldn't everyone know about it, and be yelling and complaining, to the point where it would be removed? You would think yes, but the fact is it is in the water, and its a known fact that it is toxic to humans and its a waste by product. Thats the facts. The arguement for it is that its only a small amount, while people against it says its actually a lot.

Saying the government can't hide the truth about 9/11 is like saying the government can't hide the truth about flouride. Or lets say depleted uranium, and all the birth defects in iraq and the US soilders comming back sick from the stuff.

Thats stuff everyone knows about too, and they just dont talk about. If the government can keep secrets without even trying because people are to stupid to question things, what says they can't keep a secret if they actually try?

Anyway all that stuff is just crap. Stick to facts and stuff you can atleast try to prove. If you don't believe what people are saying, then fine. Provide facts or question them on their facts. Silly arguements like, "Well how come no one in the government said anything?" Isn't a valid arguement, especially when there are people in the government who do question it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm not going to go too far into how much I don't think how much I disagree with your 'the sun will come up tomorrow' analogy, other than to say "How many times have you seen the sun come up? Now, how many times have you tracked the level of chatter spread in a situation exactly like this?" The two assumptions aren't even comparable, and I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant, as I said I had to find a "rationale for doubt" before I'm willing to dismiss something on assumption.

The whole reason that we're having this conversation is that the information is not "that obvious." It's debatable, and even those professionals that are calling for further inquiry are doing just that - calling for inquiry. Things seem fishy and they would like a further investigation of it. That's all. With all your hyperbole, you're acting as if everyone who has brought up the theory is wearing Anti-Administration T-Shirts with big foam fingers that say "Go Al-Qaeda!!11 I saw it! I know it was a bomb! The Administration is lying!! I'd bet my wife and six kids on it!" They see things that don't seem like they add up and would like to see it further investigated. To say you can gauge how fast chatter would spread, with the majority of the credible chatter being of that nature, is (IMHO) a stretch of imagination. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'd be damned surprised.

---

I am addressing the phenomenon of many amateurs on this site and all over the rest of the internet noticing very simple things which spell out "bombs" to them. I know you have seen their points. If you are in a camp with people who think that if you look really hard at the videos and the demoliton report you can merely find issues worth looking into, then I am not talking about you. I am talking about Mystic7 and Memeticverb type people who think they can go, "Hey, those buildings fell at free fall speed. I know something that most of the world doesn't know." Whatever they can notice, the entire world of demolition experts can notice. Right?????? Such noticing by such experts would cause the biggest chatter ever. Do you honestly disagree with that? I have never seen specifically that chatter happen, but I have seen chatter over much smaller matters get zillions of times bigger, just like I have seen the sun come up.

I never said I know with total specificity how fast the chatter would travel. I just know that it would become enormous very quickly. Imagine how strange it would be if it didn't. Imagine somebody noticing that the Space Shuttle Challenger had strings holding it up in the video and noticing a thumb in the background for a split second before the supposed explosion. Think about how gigantic that information would be. That is the type of situation we are talking about, except many times bigger. Imagine what would happen if Barack Obama said in a public speech two weeks ago that he is a member of Al Qaeda. Pretty much everybody in the country would know about it by now. Would they not? That is how things work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Arguements like, 'if they really blew it up people would of said something' are stupid. Especially since you are using it as an arguement that what people say don't count. Obviously if you discount everyone supporting the idea then there isn't anyone left supporting.

You say no scientist agree with it so its not true, which is a lie. There are some scientist who believe it. Theres also demolition people who believe it, and there are people from every group who believe it. Just like you have people in the scene who said they heard explosion, and families of people who died who think the government is lying to them.

If you are going to argue stuff like this, you need to do it with information and facts. Saying the government can't hide secrets isn't a fact.

Its kind of like fluoride in the water supply. If fluoride was really a waste by product that is toxic to humans, and it was being dumped into the water. Wouldn't everyone know about it, and be yelling and complaining, to the point where it would be removed? You would think yes, but the fact is it is in the water, and its a known fact that it is toxic to humans and its a waste by product. Thats the facts. The arguement for it is that its only a small amount, while people against it says its actually a lot.

Saying the government can't hide the truth about 9/11 is like saying the government can't hide the truth about flouride. Or lets say depleted uranium, and all the birth defects in iraq and the US soilders comming back sick from the stuff.

Thats stuff everyone knows about too, and they just dont talk about. If the government can keep secrets without even trying because people are to stupid to question things, what says they can't keep a secret if they actually try?

Anyway all that stuff is just crap. Stick to facts and stuff you can atleast try to prove. If you don't believe what people are saying, then fine. Provide facts or question them on their facts. Silly arguements like, "Well how come no one in the government said anything?" Isn't a valid arguement, especially when there are people in the government who do question it.

---

Are you talking to me? If so, you don't know what in the Hell you are talking about. You obviously did not pay very close attention to what I actually did say or are not telling the truth about what you know I said. Your post is full of mischaracterizations, some of which I already cleared up after other people presented similar mischaracterizations. Read what I actually wrote so maybe you can know what you are saying. You just missed it by a few million miles. I am not going to retype all of my posts just because you are either too lazy to read them or too dishonest to characterize them correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

This is the worst argument used by conspiracy theorists. The building didn't drip into a pool of steel and concrete, it collapsed. Everything loses strength before it becomes a liquid, in this case the steel did not melt but lost a significant amount of strength, leading to a structural failure.

I love how the site for architects and engineers supporting the idea of conspiracy is down. At the moment I don't have the time to watch the video, though I'd love a link to text on how the towers were brought down via demolition.
I'm studying engineering and physics and I'm another person who does not currently support the idea of a demolition job, though I'm open to information on how it's possible.

---

there were reports of molten steel underneath the rubble weaks after the collapse. the vids of witnesses are on youtube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have seen lots of videos on it, and I have read a lot of articles and forum posts on it. I have also seen people argue against them in videos and articles. There comes a point where I have to admit that I know very little about demolition and cannot argue much about those details. However, what I do understand is social psychology, and I know about the chatter phenomenon that exists on a major level in human nature, and I understand that it is not happening in regard to this situation. Try to vividly visualize what things would be like if every demoliton expert in the world was using his credibility to get his friends and family members to understand that the World Trade Center was bombed to the ground. Think about that. Can you imagine what social circle talk would be like and how it would escalate to something astronomical? What would be happening is not happening.

---

All im saying is these guys might be on to something and condeming them like that is abit much. Wether or not every demolition person or architect is speaking out about this, these guys still sould be listened to.

I think their position warants them atleast a litle respect don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

All im saying is these guys might be on to something and condeming them like that is abit much. Wether or not every demolition person or architect is speaking out about this, these guys still sould be listened to.

I think their position warants them atleast a litle respect don't you?

---

It's fine with me if people want to discuss it. I am discussing it too. I am just saying that the claims do not add up. It would be different if people were talking about very high level demolition specialist issues that only seventeen people in the United States are qualified to understand. Then my point would not hold up. What I am talking about is the idea that large numbers of amateurs, including a pretty good many who post on this site, can simply watch the way the twin towers fell and know that bombs caused the collapses or can learn a few simple facts about the collapses and know that bombs caused them. That is what would be the biggest news and gossip of all time, and that of course is not what has happened. The idea does not add up.

I still want to know why bombings would prove that the government was behind it. Why would it not mean that the Al Qaeda terrorists used bombs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

there were reports of molten steel underneath the rubble weaks after the collapse. the vids of witnesses are on youtube.

---

You completely missed my point and in doing so, strengthened it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

there were reports of molten steel underneath the rubble weaks after the collapse. the vids of witnesses are on youtube.

---

Err, we were referring to the initial collapse not needing to have melted steel. Of COURSE There would be molten steel in the rubble... incredible amounts of pressure + extensive exposure to extreme heat = melting. Again, I would like to point out that the majority of people who point out perceived physical impossibilities of the collapse are people who might have taken chemistry or physics in high school and think they are experts on it or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

I think it's more of a question of whether it's worth it. As it is, every point raised by the average person (key word: average) has been disproved by real demolition experts. I think the best point that has been raised in regard to this debate was by maddox... How is it possible that the government has enough intelligence to orchestrate the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, silencing thousands of construction workers, demolition experts, people working in, around, or somehow involved with airplanes, all government officials involved in it, etc., and be able to do this with military and perfect precision.... but they can't silence some college chum who's broadcasting some conspiracy video from his dorm room (loose change). I mean honestly, if they could kill thousands of people at a whim, then killing one person very easily should be absolutely no problem so as to preserve the integrity of their plan. Or at least shut down his website and such. To me that just makes no sense AT ALL.

---

I think the obvious answer to that is any action taken by the government to 'silence' the kid broadcasting from the dorm room would only add to his credibility.

I'd like to point out, that this thread quickly turned in to a carbon copy of all of the other threads discussing 9/11. This might be because the premise didn't offer much discussion since, yeah maybe it would be a good idea to simulate the attack, but none of us have the capability to do that as far as I know so.... I do think that everyone should at least make an attempt to stay close enough to the topic so that this thread isn't just a reiteration of what has already been reiterated about 1500 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am addressing the phenomenon of many amateurs on this site and all over the rest of the internet noticing very simple things which spell out "bombs" to them. I know you have seen their points.

If you are in a camp with people who think that if you look really hard at the videos and the demoliton report you can merely find issues worth looking into, then I am not talking about you. I am talking about Mystic7 and Memeticverb type people who think they can go, "Hey, those buildings fell at free fall speed. I know something that most of the world doesn't know." Whatever they can notice, the entire world of demolition experts can notice. Right??????

---

Well that brings a little clarity. It's not particularly discernible, in most of your posts. You appear to be of the mind that even questioning it at all - and not being "sold" on the official story - is ridiculous; that "if there was something worth even being suspicious about, then x and y would happen."; that "nobody but a tiny, insignificant group of individuals who are even halfway credible believe there is cause for further inquiry, and that group is usually comprised of wack-jobs and attention-seekers."

If that's not the way you feel, it's definitely how you come across, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have never seen specifically that chatter happen, but I have seen chatter over much smaller matters get zillions of times bigger, just like I have seen the sun come up.

---

And I have seen even the overtly obvious evade human perception.

9/11 is an emotional issue - one that hits the American public at the very core, and is founded on the idea of a "bad guy." You seem to base many of your arguments on a sociological standpoint, so I doubt you could disregard this:

Why does it take men and women years to accept the fact that they are being used and abused by their significant other? Why do they ignore the signs that are obvious to everyone else in the world but themselves? Why is it that they need to appoint something to blame the problems in their relationship on, while avoiding the cold hard truth that they are just plain being used? Why do people lie to themselves about their addictions? Why do people lie to themselves about their own abusive ways?

Everybody, to some degree, has a subconscious need to export blame. A problem stemming from some outside source (inconsistent though the perceived connection between problem and source may be) is much easier to swallow than the notion that the idea stems from home or self. I think this basic, human trait is a much more reliable constant than "how fast skepticism about an event (even on the scale of 9/11) will travel through the mainstream media."

Such is the uphill battle of any conspiracy theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Imagine somebody noticing that the Space Shuttle Challenger had strings holding it up in the video and noticing a thumb in the background for a split second before the supposed explosion. Think about how gigantic that information would be. That is the type of situation we are talking about, except many times bigger. Imagine what would happen if Barack Obama said in a public speech two weeks ago that he is a member of Al Qaeda. Pretty much everybody in the country would know about it by now. Would they not? That is how things work.

---

You are talking about blatantly overt failures of deception. This is not analogous to the suspicious raised in the aftermath of 9/11. Again, if you're only talking about the "hardcore" theorists that claim they know what happened, that's one thing (though I don't think it's consistent with most of the conversation we've been having), but if you're not, and you're equating all of that to people being suspicious of a strange, obscure white line sticking up from the top of Challenger, or a blur in the video that appeared and disappeared and could suggest an edit, then I'd believe that you're simply refusing to grant those suspicions merit, for reasons other than logic and rationality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd like to point out, that this thread quickly turned in to a carbon copy of all of the other threads discussing 9/11. This might be because the premise didn't offer much discussion since, yeah maybe it would be a good idea to simulate the attack, but none of us have the capability to do that as far as I know so.... I do think that everyone should at least make an attempt to stay close enough to the topic so that this thread isn't just a reiteration of what has already been reiterated about 1500 times.

---

Agreed.

[Edit: Btw this is the only simulation I remember seeing having been done on the event. Just thought I'd post it to try to get back on topic. :D ]

Oneironaut, what I said in the post you quoted is a point I have made many times. I have been very clear on many occasions about the fact that my point is all about the ability of experts to notice what amateurs notice and the way information travels when enormous pieces of information are discovered by many and can be easily understood by the masses. I have also never said anything at all against questioning how 9/11 really happened. I have said in a lot of threads that it alone is not illogical. The idea that the most jaw dropping piece of information ever can be easily noticed by amateurs all over the place while the actual experts are not creating and influencing the corresponding level of chatter is illogical.

I will say it one more time. It is not completely impossible that Bush and Cheney put Bin Laden up to staging the 9/11 attacks so they could have an excuse for a Halliburton revenue generating war. However, I have not seen good evidence of it, and most of the arguments people use to support the idea do not come close to adding up. Some arguments concerning the conspiracy are more absurd than others, and some rise all the way to the level of the Twilight Zone. Claims about remote control airplanes (which means something very mysterious happened to the real airplanes), a missile hitting the Pentagon (Imagine how word of that would get around, considering the number of people who work at the Pentagon and who showed up at the scene.), and fake hijackings are ideas that I think are profoundly absurd. The next level up from that is stuff about demons causing the attacks as evidenced by their faces in the smoke. It gets really ridiculous, but I do not think that considering the possiblity of an inside job is absurd in itself.

I have nothing to say anymore. It has gone too far.