patrick.net

I have looked into the truther stuff and I don't believe it. Most of the discussions are plain whacky, levitation, and photoshopped jumpers, faked deaths of passengers, govt. airplanes.

The most compelling ideas are the building collapses being implausible because steel cannot melt unless high temperatures, so thermite explosives were used. I don't buy that either

It doesn't matter because the steel did not melt, it expanded and weakened. These were extreme circumstances of an airplane going through a building at 500 miles an hours The normal rules don't always follow.

I think some people just have too much time on their hands. Some people are naturally paranoid and don't believe anything. Some are still searching for Obama's birth certificate.

I recently read a synopsis of an article which concluded after another analysis of the dust and it does NOT contain thermite.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

This guy has a series of youtube clips that debunk every point the truthers make. Here is one on WTC 7. He also has ones for the Pentagone and WTC 1 and 2.

http://www.tacYjsS-g6k

I already discussed this in the other 9/11 thread. "The Professor" just ignored me.

All this truther stuff is slightly intriguing for a while but then all the allegations of inside job just fall like a house of cards when you see the real explanations for everything.

The Professor says

The top of the Tower is getting pulverized Before it hits the rest of the building. Huge amounts of explosives seem to be involved.

Actually, the top of the tower is still intact in that photo, the building has begun to collapse exactly at the spot where the plane hit it, and there are no explosives to be seen. Both of your sentences are incorrect.

The Professor says

I see shock and awe. What do you see?

A building collapsing.

The Professor says

I see shock and awe. What do you see?

I see a building collapsing. I also see a huge piece of the building falling wildly off to the right side. If that is supposed to be a controlled demolition, it is the most poorly controlled CD in history. I also find it interesting that he used a video with no sound. Was this because the so-called "explosions" don't make any noise, as we can tell from the several videos that were shot with sound?

Basically what happened is the men who were training the pilots of the terror cells who were to fly the planes into the towers blew the cover to the FBI. They told the FBI, these guys only wanted to know how to fly, they don't care about taking off or landing so they knew what they were training for which is called hijacking. What did the FBI say?, they said no law against that.

Terrorists had tried taking down the towers several times before, and our government really needed an excuse to go into the middle east, did they let them get away with this?

My best guess is yes they did, although I've heard a million and one reasons why our government is so stupid they did not know any better.

I don't subscribe to any of truther stuff, I draw my own analogies. These guys had access to concrete builders and engineers, to think that terrorists are just plain stupid, many of these guys have considerable education, access to engineers, tried a couple of times before (learned from mistakes), and are pretty darn smart about things the average stupid American will never be able to wrap his head around.

The professor says :

I see explosions. I hear a LOT of noise. I see a building with MASSIVE amounts of explosives blowing apart a very strong steel framed building. I see concrete pulverised. I see beams flung outward at high speed. I see an explosion sequence that destroys the whole building and makes it fall at near freefall speed to the ground in a wide field of debris.\\

The only sounds the buildings made was the rumbling of the collapse. There were not booming explosion sounds that you would hear with detonations being set off as in the Seattle Superdome.

http://www.OZkr0A9633Q&feature=related

The buildings did not fall at free fall rate. They took 15 seconds or more. Feel fall would be 9 seconds.

Those are two contradictions to what you are saying. You are asking us to contradict you. Well, there you go.

The Professor says

It would be illogical if there were not 3 buildings.

The two towers were destroyed by massive explosives and spread a wide field of debris and spread pulverized concrete all over Manhattan. WTC7 was a more conventional demolition and mostly fell down into it's own footprint.

I don't understand your point. Do you believe the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, or do you believe the towers were destroyed by planes crashing into them and the subsequent fires? It has to be one or the other, correct?

The Professor says

You say "collapse" I say "Pulverized!".

The video you posted actually proves my point. For the first 7 seconds of the video, you can clearly see the top of the tower falling, still intact, and you can follow it down until it is behind the cloud of debris and no longer visible. You wrote that the top of the tower was "pulverized before it hits the rest of the building". Looking at the video, clearly that does not happen. For the entire 7 seconds that the top of the tower is visible, it is intact. At no time is it "pulverized before it hits the rest of the building", nor does it "explode into powder in mid air".

If you cannot see this, then I would suggest you watch the video again until you can see it.

Q: Does the commentator say the building has "collapsed", or does he say it has "exploded"?

A: He says it has collapsed.

The Professor says

Literally all of the floor concrete, gypsum wallboard, and FF&E, including elevators and HVAC equipment... for 110 stories of each building, an enormous weight, was pulverized to a toxic powder as fine as talcum, in mid air in seconds...and it spread out like a volcanic pyroclastic flow, over lower Manhattan...while the melted and distorted steel frames, collapse in a heap below."

Do you know of any other examples in history of this being done to a skyscraper with "super thermite"?

The Professor says

9/11 was not funny. It was murder that led to more murder.

WE, the people, have been at war for more than a decade against an idea, terrorism. It is even more abstract than the still un-won war on drugs.

The real war is on liberty.

So far, so good.

The Professor says

The implications of even believing the possibility of an inside job leads down a very chilling path of ideas. It would not hurt to have an independent investigation by an impartial non-government group.

And this is where you started going overboard.

Instead of all this nonsense about 9/11 being an "inside job", I would suggest you concentrate on the story that the very flawed RESPONSE to 9/11 was an inside job, and how to rectify-undo-avoid those mistakes as best we can.

When you start blathering about "controlled explosions" and such, you are doing everyone a great disservice.

My personal opinion is that other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.

For me, it is easier to see how some jackasses highjacked a plane and flew them in the WTC. The aircaft and fuel weakend the structure, and it all came tumbling down.

It is much to complex to believe some organization would pull off all the things you describe and link it to the government. It is more simple and plausible to understand that the government didn't act on intelligence and some random jackasses pulled off a modern day sneak attack.

Yeah but that's no answer to anything. It's only an explanation of your feelings.

So my understanding of the situation is that the big towers did fall due to a thermite reaction. I believe this is now the official report as well. However, the reaction was not due to explosive charges.

The reaction occurred in the center of the building around the elevator shafts. These were steel, and over the course of time rusted. This provided the iron oxide needed for the thermite reaction.

The airplanes provide the aluminum need for the reaction. The key to getting the thermite reaction going is energy, and this unfortunately was provided by the fuel of the planes. Once the reaction got going it weakened the core of the buildings and brought them down.

This doesn't explain building 7, but it seems pretty reasonable explanation for the other buildings.

Oliver

Clearly interested in the evidence. Truther 'evidence.'

The Professor says

An illustration of the official story of how the Tower collapsed.

And how, pray tell, does that represent the official version of what happened? Come on, explain it.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

The logical conclusion? What? No, it's not. It's a clear misrepresentation.

Can't you see the similiarity between the 2 diagrams?

They were both drawn using a computer?

Hi Professor,

Thank you for starting the two threads discussing the tragic controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. I see a lot of indisputable evidence being disputed by those in denial or misinformation campaigners.

Not sure if you've seen this video, but it clearly shows the missing "pile driver" of top floors due to pulverization and ejection by explosives.

It would be comforting to believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed by a highly organized, and well funded, conspiracy to attack the Middle East, but the evidence isn't there.

You should simply apply the logic, of logistics.

To carry out the proposed theory hundreds of people would be involved, going through the building over time, coordinating efforts, and be in communication with each other.

That didn't happen.

A guy with about $500K, the price of a California house, put together a rag tag group with a simple plan. It happened to work, by accident, or fluke, or was really well targeted.

It makes no difference because we also have the Pentagon to look at. Where was the concerted effort there?

Engineers want to make out like this was a conspiracy because no one wants to think that some guy, any guy, can make this bold of a statement without much planning.

Simple plans do succeed, complex conspiracies have way too many chances for failure.

There is no evidence. The only evidence that was obtained was from a wreckage it took years to clear.

What I find more compelling is that Bush ran off to attack Iraq rather than target Osama bin Laden in Afganistan.

Literally I think in the world of conspiracies you are looking at the smoke, and mirrors of the twin towers when the real conspiracy was Bush rushing the judgement of Iraqi involvement.

I think Bush, and his handling of the tradgedy, are much more the obvious target here.

You want the truth about the investigation being rushed? It was rushed so that Bush could move forward with a preconceived agenda.