Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[brianp]

bryan: Why don't you tell us more about the planet which you and your fellow CT nuts inhabit? With its own laws of physics and rules of logic quite different from those here on earth, it must really be a fascinating place.

[bryan]

bryan: Why don't you tell us more about the planet which you and your fellow CT nuts inhabit? With its own laws of physics and rules of logic quite different from those here on earth, it must really be a fascinating place.

Brian, the laws of physics and rules of logic on my planet are identical to the laws of physics and rules of logic on pre-9/11 earth, but very different to post-9/11 earth physics and logic. We also use many old dictionary definitions. For example, on my planet the word 'sceptic' still means: 'a person who is sceptical'.

[commandlinegamer]

Damn, I'm tired: I read this

"I know atomic bonds breaking is how materials break"

as atomic bombs - and thought someone had taken the 9/11 CT to a whole new level.

[bryan]

Damn, I'm tired: I read this

"I know atomic bonds breaking is how materials break"

as atomic bombs - and thought someone had taken the 9/11 CT to a whole new level.

You were probably right.

[tolman]

Brian, the laws of physics and rules of logic on my planet are identical to the laws of physics and rules of logic on pre-9/11 earth

So, I guess that means you don't understand them either?

...but very different to post-9/11 earth physics and logic. We also use many old dictionary definitions. For example, on my planet the word 'sceptic' still means: 'a person who is sceptical'.

So, what do you think the response of a sceptical person would be to someone suggesting incredibly powerful people with massive resources who are already secretly in charge of the world, yet who somehow need to start wars in order to gain power and/or money, who need a pretext for war that people will fall for, and so who stage a desperately overcomplicated, risky and expensive conspiracy (which is the kind of thing they apparently do all the time), and despite having centuries of practice running conspiracies, they screw it up royally and leave clues everywhere that even people who know sod-all science and engineering can spot?

In the end, hardly anyone believes the Official Story (apart from pretty much anyone I know), but that's OK because even though almost everyone else believes there is a Conspiracy, no-one apart from a few sad Internuts actually cares or does anything, and even the nuts don't do anything beyond boring people.

Apparently, for some reason it's really really important for sceptics to join the overwhelming majority of people who Already Believe, yet who do Absolutely Bugger All about it. In a way, I suppose it's a bit like having a rather scary and overenthusiastic recruitment drive for the CofE.

[brianp]

Damn, I'm tired: I read this

"I know atomic bonds breaking is how materials break"

as atomic bombs - and thought someone had taken the 9/11 CT to a whole new level.

Some of the nutters are there already:

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/

[bryan]

Is there any truth in the story about the BBC reporter Jane Standley announcing the collapse of the building before it actually fell?

Thanks both. Unfortunate gift for believers.

If the above titbit was dangled as bait, this fish is not biting. Jane Standley is irrelevant. Don't bother bringing up Larry Silverstein either.

The videos showing the timing of the collapse sequence prove that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. No other explanation for the sudden failure of the columns is even remotely possible. The debate is over. The debunkers can only try to change the subject. Not even atomic bonds can save the day.

It's ironic that Islamic fundamentalists would have no problem answering the question. They could just say it was the work of Allah.

[tolman]

The videos showing the timing of the collapse sequence prove that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. No other explanation for the sudden failure of the columns is even remotely possible. The debate is over.

You wouldn't recognise a debate if it bit you on the arse.

Anyway, why don't you toddle off and carry on doing bugger all about anything

The debunkers can only try to change the subject. Not even atomic bonds can save the day.

And how would *you* know that?
You don't even know what Newton's first law means, though I guess you are the person who seems to think that Tesla wasn't even recognised as smart in his own lifetime.
That says pretty much everything that needs to be said about your grasp of reality and your ability to research even the most trivial topic.

[DrS]

If the above titbit was dangled as bait, this fish is not biting. Jane Standley is irrelevant. Don't bother bringing up Larry Silverstein either.

Your paranoia is showing. I was asking because I was interested.

The videos showing the timing of the collapse sequence prove that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. No other explanation for the sudden failure of the columns is even remotely possible. The debate is over. The debunkers can only try to change the subject. Not even atomic bonds can save the day.

On balance, I'm persuaded that the debate is probably over in favour of catastrophic failure.

It's ironic that Islamic fundamentalists would have no problem answering the question. They could just say it was the work of Allah.

Ironically, they'd probably be right, wouldn't they!

[bryan]

Your paranoia is showing. I was asking because I was interested.

This video has been up since May 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqAHhTWEH0

If you'd heard about the story and you were interested to find out if it was true, why didn't you watch the video instead of posting a question that at first glance appears to contradict your argument.

On balance, I'm persuaded that the debate is probably over in favour of catastrophic failure.

What's the point of making a statement like this? There's no substance that anybody could challenge.

Ironically, they'd probably be right, wouldn't they!

It all depends on your particular world view. If it fits in with your big picture and you don't pay much attention to details, then I can see how it might seem probable.

[bryan]

You wouldn't recognise a debate if it bit you on the arse.

I take back my claim that the debate is over. There hasn't even been a debate, only a series of vague notions, red herrings and changes of subject.

And how would *you* know that?
You don't even know what Newton's first law means, though I guess you are the person who seems to think that Tesla wasn't even recognised as smart in his own lifetime.
That says pretty much everything that needs to be said about your grasp of reality and your ability to research even the most trivial topic.

My opinion is that there is more value in accurately representing science using incorrect terminology than in distorting science using the correct terminology.

I have read that Tesla was 'ostracized' in his lifetime. If my sources are wrong, I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong as well. If my sources are right, then tell me who ostracized him if it wasn't his peers.

[tolman]

I take back my claim that the debate is over. There hasn't even been a debate.

See - I told you you couldn't recognise a debate.

My opinion is that there is more value in accurately representing science using incorrect terminology than in distorting science using the correct terminology.

How were you accurately representing science by apparently sticking to your opinion that aluminium can't damage steel.

I have read that Tesla was 'ostracized' in his lifetime. If my sources are wrong, I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong as well. If my sources are right, then tell me who ostracized him if it wasn't his peers.

You wrote

Nikola Tesla was dubbed 'the mad scientist' by his peers, and now he's recognized as a genius.

Firstly, quite evidently, you were suggesting that in his lifetime, people didn't understand how bright he was.
If you look at the various accolades he received, you will realise that simply isn't the case.

Secondly, he was a strange person. As far as I'm aware, he isn't regarded now as having being less eccentric than people considered him at the time.

Therefore, it would seem that the opinion of his intelligence and his 'normality' hasn't really changed much over time, which is the complete opposite of what you were suggesting.

Thirdly, his name crops up with boring regularity when people with some strange theory want to appeal to history to suggest that not being agreed with is maybe more a sign of genius than of simply being wrong.
Much better not to mention him if you don't want to look daft.

[Harryprice]

Bryan, if you really care so much about how this tower fell down, you'll need to talk to a structural engineer (unless we have one on here?).

The point you need to address is the likely structural failure modes for this building which can only really be analysed with a computer programme since it involves huge numbers of calculations. It's not something you can do on the back of a fag packet. It's all about how stress is propagated through a damaged load bearing structure, which can be incredibly rapid, and what the resulting catastrophic failure looks like. It's sometimes counter-intuitive.

[DrS]

This video has been up since May 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqAHhTWEH0

If you'd heard about the story and you were interested to find out if it was true, why didn't you watch the video instead of posting a question that at first glance appears to contradict your argument.

Because I wasn't that interested, and in any case, I didn't have an "argument". The reason was that I prefer to ask fellow members whose views I have had good reason to come to respect, rather than watch youtube ... you should try it some time.

What's the point of making a statement like this? There's no substance that anybody could challenge.

I was referring, ironically, to your own comment that the debate "was over".

It all depends on your particular world view. If it fits in with your big picture and you don't pay much attention to details, then I can see how it might seem probable.

Also irony. Guess you don't do irony.

[skbuncks]

Bryan, if you really care so much about how this tower fell down, you'll need to talk to a structural engineer (unless we have one on here?).

The point you need to address is the likely structural failure modes for this building which can only really be analysed with a computer programme since it involves huge numbers of calculations. It's not something you can do on the back of a fag packet. It's all about how stress is propagated through a damaged load bearing structure, which can be incredibly rapid, and what the resulting catastrophic failure looks like. It's sometimes counter-intuitive.

Theres always the Blanchard report. But I guess that will be dismissed as the ramblings of a Government shill in favour of the iron clad word of Jowenko. After all, watching a 10 second clip on youtube is all the material you need to study if your a man of his calibre.

skb