ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories

Reply
Old 1st May 2020, 03:09 PM   #121
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 583
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What does that phrase mean?
What would have been different if any of the towers had NOT "collapsed virtually in its own footprint", in your view? Can you spell out any objectively verifiable criteria by which to decide whether or not a collapsing highrise collapses "virtually in its own footprint"?

A highrise building that collapses into it's own footprint would leave a mound of debris in the footprint like the three mounds in this LIDAR.




The rectangular mound on the left is WTC7. The mound in the center,just to right of the circular crater is WTC1 north tower
and the mound to the right is the WTC2 south tower. The WTC6 that did not collapse is the building with the crater
and the two halves of the WTC3 Marriot are shown in the foreground.
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by Fonebone; 1st May 2020 at 03:16 PM.
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 03:30 PM   #122
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What does that phrase mean?
What would have been different if any of the towers had NOT "collapsed virtually in its own footprint", in your view? Can you spell out any objectively verifiable criteria by which to decide whether or not a collapsing highrise collapses "virtually in its own footprint"?
I am not sure what you are trying to dispute here. I used this phrase because it appears repeatedly in the description of the collapses. I added the word "virtually" because I am aware the description is not accurate. I don't care if it is accurate or not anyway. The accuracy of the description doesn't change anything on my point, which is:
"Let's live with the fact we had a chaotic event (as a technical term) and never will be able to replicate or model it with any reasonable degree of accuracy."
Any more semantics?

Last edited by curious cat; 1st May 2020 at 03:44 PM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 03:48 PM   #123
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,552
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
But one that literally looked exactly like the real world event would certainly be better than what NIST published.
Not so JSanderO. AE911 just paid ~$350k for a fudged bit of graphic artistry that "looked like" the real event. Good enough to fool amateurs or lay persons. BUT any professional knows why an accurate engineering simulation may not look like - may not visually resemble - the real event.

Actually it is a first step decision in a "simulation". Decide what you want to achieve. Visual "looks like" for explanatory purposes OR a quantifiable engineering one which probably will not look like the real thing.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st May 2020 at 03:49 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 04:12 PM   #124
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,662
the buildings collapsing virtually in their own footprint. WRONG

The towers collapsed and trashed 19 acres of the City, that is not their own foot print.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
A highrise building that collapses into it's own footprint would leave a mound of debris in the footprint like the three mounds in this LIDAR.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1fc8b30cb7.jpg


The rectangular mound on the left is WTC7. The mound in the center,just to right of the circular crater is WTC1 north tower
and the mound to the right is the WTC2 south tower. The WTC6 that did not collapse is the building with the crater
and the two halves of the WTC3 Marriot are shown in the foreground.
The buildings did not collapse into their own footprint, but littered 19 acres of the WTC area. Each Tower is one acre, thus own footprint is 2 acres for two towers not 19 acres with WTC tower debris. What is your point?

WTC 6 did collapse in places, and WTC 6 fires were fought. Your point on WTC 6? What, no point again?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 04:27 PM   #125
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,346
[quote=Fonebone;13075247]
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post


Allow me to return the favor

https://www.google.com/search?client...ilver+train%22
returns--
https://books.google.com/books?id=oU...ain%22&f=false

Prologue excerpt:
....The arrangement proved entirely satisfactory to all concerned, especially president Richard Nixon,
who never discovered he had saluted a consignment of narcotics.
Goody. My Google CT filters are working fine. Ah. The wondrous power of AI.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

Last edited by Gord_in_Toronto; 1st May 2020 at 04:28 PM.
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 05:00 PM   #126
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 583
[quote=Gord_in_Toronto;13075683]
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post

Goody. My Google CT filters are working fine. Ah. The wondrous power of AI.

better be unborn than untaught, for ignorance is the root of misfortune _Plato
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 06:43 PM   #127
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,547
[quote=Fonebone;13075247]
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post


Allow me to return the favor

https://www.google.com/search?client...ilver+train%22
returns--
https://books.google.com/books?id=oU...ain%22&f=false

Prologue excerpt:
....The arrangement proved entirely satisfactory to all concerned, especially president Richard Nixon,
who never discovered he had saluted a consignment of narcotics.
From Google description:

Quote:
Drawing on years of experience as a bestselling investigative writer, David Yallop has produced an explosive fiction debut. Unholy Alliance is a breath-taking high-speed race that goes straight to the truth behind the modern American nightmare and into an alarming, but all too believable future.
Dude, seriously?

At least reference Ian Fleming or something.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 03:50 AM   #128
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
A highrise building that collapses into it's own footprint would leave a mound of debris in the footprint like the three mounds in this LIDAR.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1fc8b30cb7.jpg


The rectangular mound on the left is WTC7. The mound in the center,just to right of the circular crater is WTC1 north tower
and the mound to the right is the WTC2 south tower. The WTC6 that did not collapse is the building with the crater
and the two halves of the WTC3 Marriot are shown in the foreground.
WTC 6 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the North Tower, and had to be demolished.
If the North Tower had fallen into its own footprint, how did it damage WTC 6?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_World_Trade_Center
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:00 AM   #129
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,935
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
I am not sure what you are trying to dispute here.
I am not disputing anything. I am wondering what something means. If I don't know what it means, I can't very well dispute it, can?

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
I used this phrase because it appears repeatedly in the description of the collapses.
I know - and I'd ask the exact same question of anyone who ever described any of the WTC collapses in terms of "into/not into footprint". I have yet to see an applicable definition. It sounds like a term an engineer or architect might use professionally, but in context it is always technobabble.

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
I added the word "virtually" because I am aware the description is not accurate. I don't care if it is accurate or not anyway.
I have no issue with "accuracy". I really want to know if you could, if your life or your mother's depended on it, actually define what "collapses into its own foorprint" means: Is there a set of objectively (or inter-subjectively) applicable and reasonable, useful criteria by which to tell "into foorprint" from "not into footprint"?

(As a matter of fact, I can outline such reasonable and useful criteria - but none of the WTC collapses fit that bill, not nearly)

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
The accuracy of the description doesn't change anything on my point, which is:
"Let's live with the fact we had a chaotic event (as a technical term) and never will be able to replicate or model it with any reasonable degree of accuracy."
Any more semantics?
No, I had no quarrel with the rest of your post.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:20 AM   #130
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,935
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
A highrise building that collapses into it's own footprint would leave a mound of debris in the footprint like the three mounds in this LIDAR.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1fc8b30cb7.jpg
Others already pointed out that none of the tall towers collapsed even nearly "into its own footprint" by any reasonable, useful definition of that phrase. So I wonder:
What is your definition of "collapsing into its own foorptint"? Can you spell out a specific set of objectively verifiable criteria by which to tell building collapses "into the footprint" from those "NOT into the footprint"? I think this would have to take care of the fact that no collapse could ever have all building material go 100% into the actual footprint (there will always be at least dust and some small debris tumbling outside), and there could not ever be a collapse that sees all material end up outside of the footprint.

But none of that is my issue now and here.
You forget in the above claim a very simple circumstance to be considered:
Does the building have a basement, how deep is that basement, and is its volume large enough to contain all of the building material?
The WTC twin towers were about 95% air by volume (this is actually a rather accurate estimate - they were not less than 94% air, and also not more than 96% air). So only 5% of their volume was steel, concrete and all the other solid and liquid contents. If you actually completely collapse 110 above-ground floors inside the footprint, perfectly compacted (with no air trapped), you'd get a mound (or actually approximately a cuboid) with a height of 5% of 110 = 5.5 stories.
The towers had 7 basement levels. The basements covered a larger area than the above-ground square tower footprints.
So there was plenty of volume below ground for the entire twin towers to collapse into, with no mound at all!
That there WERE mounds after all is due to the chaotic nature of the event: The towers did NOT neatly collapse straight down into the basements. In some places, debris would pile up higher than average, in others lower than average, and that gives you, in effect, some mounds.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The rectangular mound on the left is WTC7.
WTC7 did not have any basement levels. That's why its mound was more prominent above street level.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The mound in the center,just to right of the circular crater is WTC1 north tower
Wrong.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
... The WTC6 that did not collapse is the building with the crater
Uhm there is a crater because WTC6 did (partially) collapse.



How many years have you been at this? How often have you masturbated on those LIDAR images? And yet you don't understand the easiest of basics: Basements and partial collapse.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:24 AM   #131
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 583
[quote=Axxman300;13075746]
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post

From Google description:
Quote:
Quote:
Drawing on years of experience as a bestselling investigative writer, David Yallop has produced an explosive fiction debut.

Unholy Alliance is a breath-taking high-speed race that goes straight to the truth behind the modern American nightmare and into an alarming, but all too believable future.
Dude, seriously?
Yes dud , seriously!
Quote:
At least reference Ian Fleming or something.
OK I'll take something---Mike Levine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Levine_(DEA)
http://www.policetrialexpert.com/credentials/
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by Fonebone; 2nd May 2020 at 06:31 AM. Reason: format
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:46 AM   #132
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
WTC 6 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the North Tower, and had to be demolished.
If the North Tower had fallen into its own footprint, how did it damage WTC 6?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_World_Trade_Center
For the same reasoning, WT7 received damage on multiple floors due to the collapse of WTC1.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:53 AM   #133
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
[quote=Fonebone;13076070]
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Rudeness isn't an effective debating technique. Of course it could have been a misspelling, only you can know.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 12:26 PM   #134
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,547
[quote=Fonebone;13076070]
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
None of that has anything to do with 9-11. And with all things CIA-South American Narcotics it's always more complex and nuanced than CT-sts present it as being. We are talking about the 1960s through the 1980s against the backdrop of the Cold War.

911 was a straight forward terrorist operation committed by an extremely competent, and well funded organization - Al Qaeda. Not giving them the credit they are due is, frankly - racist. Bin Laden and his band of merry men won a big one, and got the Holy War they dreamed of as a result.

I take my hat off to them. Well played.

The irony is that after all the bombs and blood on all sides, by 2025 the Middle East will look mostly like it did on 9/10/2001 with the Taliban ruling Afghanistan, the Saudi Royal Family still in place, Iran doing Iran stuff, and everyone else right back where they started...except for the dead.

911 Truthers have mostly moved onto other windmills to fight, join them.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 08:42 AM   #135
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
[quote=Axxman300;13076333]
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post

None of that has anything to do with 9-11. And with all things CIA-South American Narcotics it's always more complex and nuanced than CT-sts present it as being. We are talking about the 1960s through the 1980s against the backdrop of the Cold War.

911 was a straight forward terrorist operation committed by an extremely competent, and well funded organization - Al Qaeda. Not giving them the credit they are due is, frankly - racist. Bin Laden and his band of merry men won a big one, and got the Holy War they dreamed of as a result.

I take my hat off to them. Well played.

The irony is that after all the bombs and blood on all sides, by 2025 the Middle East will look mostly like it did on 9/10/2001 with the Taliban ruling Afghanistan, the Saudi Royal Family still in place, Iran doing Iran stuff, and everyone else right back where they started...except for the dead.

911 Truthers have mostly moved onto other windmills to fight, join them.
Some are extremely slow to catch onto the new wave.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2020, 09:41 PM   #136
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 421
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It's not an open question to those who understand the science. And it wasn't just a fire, there was structural damage.
Okay, but NIST said that the structural damage had nothing to do with initiating the collapse. The structural damage would only have played a role in how the collapse progressed. So it will remain an open question as long as it can't be replicated.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Two problems, WTC7 was a unique design, there are few buildings with similar construction specs. The other problem is that this is the 21st Century, and most high rise buildings have effective fire suppression, most of which has been upgraded thanks to the NIST Report's recommendations.
Many buildings have unique designs. This does not prevent demolition companies from using explosives to bring them down. If the science was well understood you could determine how to bring down steel-framed high-rises with fire, but no one has done this yet because it is fake science.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Explain in detail how these buildings are a match for WTC7's structural design, and please include the structural damages which initiated the fires.
There have been fires in many high-rises yet none have collapsed like WTC7. You have to show what made WTC7 uniquely susceptible to collapse due to fire as it was a unique event.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
In 19 years nobody has done a better study. In 19 years structural and physical computer modeling has improved to provide superior results for less money, so where are the new research models proving WTC7 was CD? What has A&E Truth done with all of that money they've raised for a new investigation?
The UAF Hulsey report, which is the most comprehensive to date, shows that fires could not have brought down WTC7. So the official story is verifiably false.

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Very wrong.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid was a mixed structure of a concrete core and a steel perimeter, and the firefighters fought the fire in the lower part of the tower. Guess what part collapsed?
NIST stated in their report that, "The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires."

The Windsor Tower was still standing after experiencing a much more severe raging inferno than WTC7.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Unless it's built like WTC7, up to and including being the same size (structures don't scale intuitively), then it won't collapse like WTC7.
But you can still create the same same features: free-fall acceleration for the first few seconds; rapid onset, total collapse etc.

Originally Posted by CORed View Post
So, in order to prove to you that the WTC7 collapse happened the way the "official story" says it happened, we need to reoncstruct at least one of the WTC1 an WTC2 (I don't remember which tower's debris initiated the fire in WTC7), and WTC7, crash an airliner with a full load of fuel into the reconstructed tower, and see if the tower and WTC7 collapse like they did the first time. That task is certainly beyond my abilities, but I think there are people on this site with enough engineering experience to pull it off, given the necessary funding.

How would you like to pay for that?
Well, for starters just find any steel-framed high-rise and get it to collapse like WTC7.

This is how real science works. If someone did not believe that heavier-than-air flight was possible, the Wright Brothers could say, "Come to Kitty Hawk, NC on December 17, 1903 stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."

If someone did not believe that atomic bombs were possible, Oppenheimer could say, "Come to Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16th, 1945, stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."

Now if some people don't believe that steel-framed high-rises can collapse due fire, like WTC7, tell us where we can stand to watch a demonstration.

If you can't tell us where we can watch a demonstration of this then your beliefs are fake science.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So now: Could you please tell us exactly of what you need to find an experimental collapse to be "like WTC7"?
We can call it the Danny Jowenko test. Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert, was shown a video of the collapse of WTC7. He said this after watching it:

Danny Jowenko: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You're sure?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely. It's been imploded. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts. It is without a doubt a professional job. They know exactly what they're doing.

So get a steel-framed high-rise to collapse due to random fires. Then show it to a demolition expert and have him believe it was really brought down via controlled demolition. If you can get a building to collapse due to fire and have it look indistinguishable from an implosion then it will have passed the Danny Jowenko test.

Game?
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 03:08 AM   #137
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post

There have been fires in many high-rises yet none have collapsed like WTC7. You have to show what made WTC7 uniquely susceptible to collapse due to fire as it was a unique event.
Let's start with the fact that all collapses... CD or whatever occur when the structural system that supports the building and its elements loses integrity.

The twin towers' collapses had several factors/characteristics. For one the floor system outside the core experienced a progressive collapse like a vertical "stack of dominoes". Essentially each floor was over loaded by material from above... after the initial "floor collapse". Likely cause was structural failure of connections or column involvement such as displacement etc.

The core and facade axial systems collapsed as a result of their losing the bracing when the floor plates collapsed. Columns cannot stand when the slenderness ratio is is so high.

Mechanical damage followed by the effect of heat from fire seems to make sense as the initiating cause.

+++

7WTC showed the EPH collapse first indicating the axial structure supporting it failed. Like the floor plate collapses of the twin towers, the EPH appears to have locally destroy the floors below it as another falling domino like collapse took place. Again columns losing their bracing lose some of their axial strength, become unstable and buckle as Euler describes the behavior of columns which are too slender. NIST's assertion is that fires on lower floors caused local floor collapse and column failure leading to the EPH collapse.

The floor collapse progressed east to west inside the tower causing with the failure of axial structures.... this collapse appears to have undermined the structure supporting the facade from flr 7 down... and then the moment frame collapsed 105 feet or so accounting for the 2.1 second of FF collapse.

There is little real time data... but reasonable assumptions related to the heat from fire and understanding the steel frame design which WAS unique,
can account for several sequences to explain what was observed.

There was no evidence of bombs used for CD... or burning of columns as needed for something like nano thermite to undermine the structure.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 04:02 AM   #138
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,941
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
There have been fires in many high-rises yet none have collapsed like WTC7. You have to show what made WTC7 uniquely susceptible to collapse due to fire as it was a unique event.
Meanwhile, let's remember that there have been many explosive demolitions yet none have proceeded without sounds of explosions so loud as to be impossible to miss, at the precise moment of collapse initiation. You have to show what made the supposed demolition of WTC7 completely lacking in these sounds, as if it was demolished as you claim it was also a unique event.

If you subscribe to the thermite hypothesis, then please note that this too would have to be a unique event.

Buildings fall down due to fire, as has happened many times before and since the WTC collapses. Silent explosives or thermite buildings demolitions are much more implausible explanations, as there is no existence theorem for either, and so either requires a much higher burden of proof.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 04:30 AM   #139
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Meanwhile, let's remember that there have been many explosive demolitions yet none have proceeded without sounds of explosions so loud as to be impossible to miss, at the precise moment of collapse initiation. You have to show what made the supposed demolition of WTC7 completely lacking in these sounds, as if it was demolished as you claim it was also a unique event.

If you subscribe to the thermite hypothesis, then please note that this too would have to be a unique event.
Dave
Tanabear, Dave has stated why CD is implausible here.
It is your claim that WTC7 could have been brought down by controlled demolition, in a way that it would look and sound like the records we have of the collapse- videos etc.- without the signs of explosives, such as loud explosions and shockwaves.
Let's apply your requirements to your own claim:

Originally Posted by tanabear, edited by Cosmic Yak View Post

Well, for starters just find any steel-framed high-rise and get it to collapse like WTC7 did, only by controlled demolition.

This is how real science works. If someone did not believe that heavier-than-air flight was possible, the Wright Brothers could say, "Come to Kitty Hawk, NC on December 17, 1903 stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."

If someone did not believe that atomic bombs were possible, Oppenheimer could say, "Come to Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16th, 1945, stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."

Now if some people don't believe that steel-framed high-rises can collapse due fire, like WTC7, tell us where we can stand to watch a demonstration.

If you can't tell us where we can watch a demonstration of this then your beliefs are fake science.

Game?
So, tanabear, are you game?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 06:58 AM   #140
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Okay, but NIST said that the structural damage had nothing to do with initiating the collapse. The structural damage would only have played a role in how the collapse progressed. So it will remain an open question as long as it can't be replicated.
Only to those who refuse to learn physics, like you. There is no open question to how WTC7 collapsed.
Quote:

Many buildings have unique designs. This does not prevent demolition companies from using explosives to bring them down. If the science was well understood you could determine how to bring down steel-framed high-rises with fire, but no one has done this yet because it is fake science.
As others have posted a building will collapse when the supporting structure fails, plain and simple concept.
Quote:

There have been fires in many high-rises yet none have collapsed like WTC7. You have to show what made WTC7 uniquely susceptible to collapse due to fire as it was a unique event.

The UAF Hulsey report, which is the most comprehensive to date, shows that fires could not have brought down WTC7. So the official story is verifiably false.
The report is far from comprehensive as he forced columns to fail in his demonstration. The dynamics of the steel softening and losing strength were hard for anyone to model, Hulsey just got it wrong. Why do you think that the Univ. of Alaska distanced from the report/Hulsey?
Quote:

NIST stated in their report that, "The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires."
And it was, so what is your point?
Quote:

The Windsor Tower was still standing after experiencing a much more severe raging inferno than WTC7.
In your opinion, who else shares this belief?
Quote:

But you can still create the same same features: free-fall acceleration for the first few seconds; rapid onset, total collapse etc.
Who has and what was the conclusion? Free-fall is a common misconception that most, including you, CTs hang onto, but in reality means very little scientifically.
Quote:

Well, for starters just find any steel-framed high-rise and get it to collapse like WTC7.
No the building would necessarily need to have the same building concept. Do you remember that a B-24 crashed into the Empire State Building causing fire and damage, but the build stood, because of the building design and fire fighting that took place.
Quote:

This is how real science works. If someone did not believe that heavier-than-air flight was possible, the Wright Brothers could say, "Come to Kitty Hawk, NC on December 17, 1903 stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."

If someone did not believe that atomic bombs were possible, Oppenheimer could say, "Come to Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16th, 1945, stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."

Now if some people don't believe that steel-framed high-rises can collapse due fire, like WTC7, tell us where we can stand to watch a demonstration.

If you can't tell us where we can watch a demonstration of this then your beliefs are fake science.

We can call it the Danny Jowenko test. Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert, was shown a video of the collapse of WTC7. He said this after watching it:

Danny Jowenko: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You're sure?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely. It's been imploded. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts. It is without a doubt a professional job. They know exactly what they're doing.

So get a steel-framed high-rise to collapse due to random fires. Then show it to a demolition expert and have him believe it was really brought down via controlled demolition. If you can get a building to collapse due to fire and have it look indistinguishable from an implosion then it will have passed the Danny Jowenko test.

Game?
As some have posted where are the sounds coming from the CD? Did Danny think it was a film without sound? I don't know but I suspect if he were asked again he might have a different answer.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 07:01 AM   #141
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,941
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Do you remember that a B-24
B-25.

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
crashed into the Empire State Building causing fire and damage, but the build stood, because of the building design and fire fighting that took place.
Dave (WW2 plane nerd)
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 07:33 AM   #142
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
We can call it the Danny Jowenko test.
Let's do the real Danny Jowenko test, shall we? Danny died in a "car accident"

Please find the CD firm that went out of business when their management staff, and employees, all suffered similar fates.

After all, if they were willing to kill good ol' Danny, why would they let the people with actual first hand knowledge live?

Game?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 08:01 AM   #143
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
B-25.

Dave (WW2 plane nerd)
Faulty memory retrieval, I stand corrected.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 02:16 PM   #144
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,935
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Okay, but NIST said that the structural damage had nothing to do with initiating the collapse. The structural damage would only have played a role in how the collapse progressed.
Credit where credit is due: This is correct.
It's the only correct thing in your entire post.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Many buildings have unique designs. This does not prevent demolition companies from using explosives to bring them down. If the science was well understood you could determine how to bring down steel-framed high-rises with fire, but no one has done this yet because it is fake science.
What crap. No one studies how to bring down buildings with fires, because there is no application for it. You compare apples with apple worms.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
There have been fires in many high-rises yet none have collapsed like WTC7.
You still would have to define what you mean by "like WTC7" - by what objective and relevant criteria?
Other buildings have collapsed from fires, each in their own way; but all also according to shared general principles such as that gravity took over after collapse initiation. Which is relevant.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
You have to show what made WTC7 uniquely susceptible to collapse due to fire as it was a unique event.
Why? It collapsed from a unique fire (evey fire is unique)

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
The UAF Hulsey report, which is the most comprehensive to date,
Say what?? LOL
This tiny amateur work is an insignificant, dumb spot of fly poop on the NIST report.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
shows that fires could not have brought down WTC7. So the official story is verifiably false.
The Hulsey report is a complete and utter failure.
Here are the Public Comments, on the AE911Truth website:
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PD...ts-Updated.pdf
Most of the comments are short and amateurish, many coming from fans of AE911Truth.
But turn your attention to pages 13-25: That's 13 pages of a devastating critique, that basically proves Hulsey FAILED all of his objectives, didn't even try to meet them; and that his principle conclusion ("Fire Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC 7") cannot follow logically from the work he has done.
This all quite apart from the fact that the simluations shown are obviously unphysical, worse than cartoons.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
NIST stated in their report that, "The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires."

The Windsor Tower was still standing
Yes, but the steel-frame portion had collapsed completely

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
after experiencing a much more severe raging inferno than WTC7.
Really? By what criteria? Can you show evidence for the claim?

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
But you can still create the same same features: free-fall acceleration for the first few seconds; rapid onset, total collapse etc.
Why are any of those relevant? They were incidental.
That they are possible is demonstrated by the fact that they happend.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Well, for starters just find any steel-framed high-rise and get it to collapse like WTC7.
Begging the question, again, of what you mean by "like". We'll come to that later...

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
This is how real science works. If someone did not believe that heavier-than-air flight was possible, the Wright Brothers could say, "Come to Kitty Hawk, NC on December 17, 1903 stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."
Building a plane for a demonstration is so cheap it can be done by private enthusiasts of unspectactular means. Rebuilding WTC7 would cost hundreds of millions.
But in 1903, no demonstration was actually necessary. Every serious person studied in the field already knew it was possible in principle. In fact, that is why the Wright brothers (as well as many other pioneers at the same time) went through all the cost and trouble in the first place: Because it was clear it would work.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
If someone did not believe that atomic bombs were possible, Oppenheimer could say, "Come to Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16th, 1945, stand here --> and we'll give you a little demonstration."
Yes, he could do this after countless billions of dollars had been spent.
But in 1903, no demonstration was actually necessary. Every serious person studied in the field already knew it was possible in principle. In fact, that is why the US government was ready to spend the countless billions in the first place: Because it was clear it would work.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Now if some people don't believe that steel-framed high-rises can collapse due fire, like WTC7, tell us where we can stand to watch a demonstration.

If you can't tell us where we can watch a demonstration of this then your beliefs are fake science.
You are free to do your own demonstration.
Every serious person studied in the field already knows it is possible in principle. In fact, it did happen, obviously. So the demonstration was done on 9/11/2001, late in the afternoon.
You are the one bent on proving the opposite. Your burden of evidence.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
We can call it the Danny Jowenko test. Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert, was shown a video of the collapse of WTC7. He said this after watching it:

Danny Jowenko: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You're sure?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely. It's been imploded. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts. It is without a doubt a professional job. They know exactly what they're doing.

So get a steel-framed high-rise to collapse due to random fires. Then show it to a demolition expert and have him believe it was really brought down via controlled demolition. If you can get a building to collapse due to fire and have it look indistinguishable from an implosion then it will have passed the Danny Jowenko test.

Game?
Sure, I am game, right after you resurrect Danny Jowenko.

But actually, we do have two other tall building collapses that are alleged to be the result of fires, on which we can do the Jowenko test: The WTC twin towers!

Game?

Or do you want to hitch your luck on the phrase "have it look indistinguishable from an implosion"? Then you'd be begging the question.


By the way: Later in the same interview, Jowenko learned a few bits of additional information about WTC7, became silent for a while, blew his cheeks, and finally said: "I cannot explain it".
That is his final verdict
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 27th May 2020 at 02:20 PM. Reason: Added last 2 pararaphs
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 03:23 PM   #145
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,612
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
NIST stated in their report that, "The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires."

The Windsor Tower was still standing after experiencing a much more severe raging inferno than WTC7.
No, the concrete core and the bottom half were. The outer part of the floors and the steel perimeter collapsed in the top half.

On what basis do you call it "much more severe"? The area of each floor in WTC7 was 6 times that of the Windsor.

There has not been a collapse of a tall building due to fire before WTC2, but there have been several after. Windsor's steel perimeter, as discussed; a building in Sao Paulo and another building in Tehran.

The reason why there aren't many tall buildings collapsed due to fire is probably that there haven't been enough big fires in tall buildings for the statistics on the number of collapses to be significant, but as time passes and more fires occur, that keeps changing.

Newly constructed tall buildings have learnt from lessons from 9/11, so it's expected that we'll see fewer cases anyway.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 04:56 AM   #146
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I might be conflating the conspiracy theory narratives myself, but I had an epiphany last week and like all good skeptics I tried to figure out how the available evidence fit into it.

I was wondering whether or not this whole superfluous "controlled demolition" idea sprang up from the no-plane theories of the early 2000s. No plane = no reason for the towers to collapse except by brute force demolition. Then the demolition scenario took on a life of its own, eventually standing alone as the main talking point while the other crazy theories quietly fizzled out.

For a reasonable skeptic, on its face, the controlled demolition claim is grossly superfluous. Why crash a jumbo jet into skyscrapers and THEN demolish them. It's simply not worth the effort.

My theory about the origins of the controlled demolition scenario may explain how truthers ended up in such an awkward spot.

Then again, it could have sprung up on it's own when truthers used their "common sense" to determine that any building collapsing is demolition .
No it did not, the Conspiracy Theories had many sources and Factors associated with it, fueled by the Miss Information and Propoganda wars at the time.
You have oversimplified it.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 05:10 AM   #147
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
No, the concrete core and the bottom half were. The outer part of the floors and the steel perimeter collapsed in the top half.

On what basis do you call it "much more severe"? The area of each floor in WTC7 was 6 times that of the Windsor.

There has not been a collapse of a tall building due to fire before WTC2, but there have been several after. Windsor's steel perimeter, as discussed; a building in Sao Paulo and another building in Tehran.

The reason why there aren't many tall buildings collapsed due to fire is probably that there haven't been enough big fires in tall buildings for the statistics on the number of collapses to be significant, but as time passes and more fires occur, that keeps changing.

Newly constructed tall buildings have learnt from lessons from 9/11, so it's expected that we'll see fewer cases anyway.
The Elephant in the Room is the concrete Core, and the lack of a very fuel Rich fire, and possible chimney effects in all three buildings make the Winsor tower fire incomparable to 9/11/2001 in the first place.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 07:55 AM   #148
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
No, the concrete core and the bottom half were. The outer part of the floors and the steel perimeter collapsed in the top half.

On what basis do you call it "much more severe"? The area of each floor in WTC7 was 6 times that of the Windsor.

There has not been a collapse of a tall building due to fire before WTC2, but there have been several after. Windsor's steel perimeter, as discussed; a building in Sao Paulo and another building in Tehran.

The reason why there aren't many tall buildings collapsed due to fire is probably that there haven't been enough big fires in tall buildings for the statistics on the number of collapses to be significant, but as time passes and more fires occur, that keeps changing.

Newly constructed tall buildings have learnt from lessons from 9/11, so it's expected that we'll see fewer cases anyway.
Bolded part needs to emphasized to CTs of 9/11 claiming no steel building has collapsed due to uncontrolled fires. The images of the building the next morning bear out your comment, the concrete core was standing while the steel frame around it collapsed. Note to tanabear: Look up the construction of the WTC7 and you will find no concrete core in the design of the building.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 08:06 AM   #149
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,941
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Note to tanabear: Look up the construction of the WTC7 and you will find no concrete core in the design of the building.
What, not even that well known constructional standard for high rise buildings, C4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centres?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 09:00 AM   #150
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
What, not even that well known constructional standard for high rise buildings, C4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centres?

Dave
No, I'm afraid not.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 09:16 AM   #151
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,231
If in fact it were the case that the World Trade Center was brought down via controlled demolition by the US government, then the hijackers on the planes would be irrelevant, because the planes themselves would be irrelevant. The same applies to another popular 9/11 CT that a missile hit the Pentagon, not a hijacked 757.

No hijackers, no planes = no al-Qaeda role in the attacks.

The obvious weak link is United 93, which is why yet another popular CT is that it was shot down - but also that there’s something suspicious about the supposed lack of wreckage at the crash site in PA. Again, wishing away the facts of the hijacked planes, because the al-Qaeda operatives who carried out the 9/11 attacks were on the planes.

Other popular claims - that the CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, that bin Laden never took credit for the attacks, that the bin Laden videotapes where he does in fact take credit for the attacks were fake, that the hijackers are alive or were framed, that they weren't on the passenger manifests, that 4000 Jews were told not to show up at the World Trade Center on 9/11, the Dancing Israelis and Mossad, remote control takeover of the planes, NORAD stand down, Larry “pull it” Silverstein and all of the endless crap about WTC7, etc etc ad nauseam - what these ALL have in common, intentionally or not, is the goal of absolving al-Qaeda of their responsibility for the mass murder and destruction that they caused on 9/11/2001 - and putting the blame on the US government, Israel/Mossad/The Jews, the NWO, etc.

The real 9/11 coverup is that of the conspiracy theorists who are determined to prove al-Qaeda’s innocence or at the very least, downplay their obvious role in the attacks. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Last edited by Allen773; 1st July 2020 at 09:19 AM.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 03:24 AM   #152
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
The real 9/11 coverup is that of the conspiracy theorists who are determined to prove al-Qaeda’s innocence or at the very least, downplay their obvious role in the attacks. They should be ashamed of themselves.
They should be, but don't forget that many conspiracy theorists are operating on a different moral spectrum.
For a start, there is a deep vein of anti-semitism running through their theories- hence the Dancing Israelis, the Jews 'not turning up for work' etc. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of sneering condescension towards the Arabs as well- "How could a bunch of turban-wearing cave dwellers pull of a plan like that?".
Top that with an automatic distrust of any kind of authority, a willingness to condemn people without any kind of evidence, a suspicion bordering on hatred of law-enforcement agencies, the military, science and education, justice systems and all kinds of business, and finish with a deep contempt for the average person in the street, and there isn't much room for feeling shame about anything.
I would like to believe that they are acting out of a desire for truth and justice, but when you add all this other stuff into the mix, there isn't much room for these concepts at all.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 09:55 AM   #153
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
They should be, but don't forget that many conspiracy theorists are operating on a different moral spectrum.
For a start, there is a deep vein of anti-semitism running through their theories- hence the Dancing Israelis, the Jews 'not turning up for work' etc. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of sneering condescension towards the Arabs as well- "How could a bunch of turban-wearing cave dwellers pull of a plan like that?".
Top that with an automatic distrust of any kind of authority, a willingness to condemn people without any kind of evidence, a suspicion bordering on hatred of law-enforcement agencies, the military, science and education, justice systems and all kinds of business, and finish with a deep contempt for the average person in the street, and there isn't much room for feeling shame about anything.
I would like to believe that they are acting out of a desire for truth and justice, but when you add all this other stuff into the mix, there isn't much room for these concepts at all.
For what it’s worth, you’ve just described - ironically - the kind of person inclined to join a terrorist group or commit a terrorist or other seemingly random murderous act of some kind - whether it be ideologically motivated (a Neo-Nazi or ISIS sympathizer running over people with his car), a school shooter, or, dare I say, a deeply frustrated, angry young man who decides to kill the President of the United States because he thinks that the notoriety of the act will somehow endear himself to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and/or Cuba.

Mohammed Atta was himself convinced that the Jews controlled America via their alleged domination of Wall Street finance in particular. He and other al Qaeda jihadists raged against “the Jews and Crusaders” who from their view dominated and oppressed Muslims via their support of Israel and US puppet regimes in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East (the “Near Enemy”) from the supposed safety of global (Jewish, from their POV) finance in New York and the US government and military institutions in Washington, D.C. (the “Far Enemy”).

New York finance + the centers of the US government and its military might...hmmm....

You’ll note, of course, that eerily similar grievances and conspiracy theories are part and parcel of the mentality and motives of many, many 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Kind of like how Holocaust deniers just can’t help but show their anti-Semitism, and even outright Nazi sympathizing.

What I’m getting at is my increasingly strong suspicion that a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, like Holocaust deniers, hide behind their pet “theories” because they aren’t willing to come out and admit their approval of the attacks themselves. If that sounds harsh, then good. I don’t exactly have much patience with this crowd.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 10:42 AM   #154
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
For what it’s worth, you’ve just described - ironically - the kind of person inclined to join a terrorist group or commit a terrorist or other seemingly random murderous act of some kind - whether it be ideologically motivated (a Neo-Nazi or ISIS sympathizer running over people with his car), a school shooter, or, dare I say, a deeply frustrated, angry young man who decides to kill the President of the United States because he thinks that the notoriety of the act will somehow endear himself to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and/or Cuba.

Mohammed Atta was himself convinced that the Jews controlled America via their alleged domination of Wall Street finance in particular. He and other al Qaeda jihadists raged against “the Jews and Crusaders” who from their view dominated and oppressed Muslims via their support of Israel and US puppet regimes in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East (the “Near Enemy”) from the supposed safety of global (Jewish, from their POV) finance in New York and the US government and military institutions in Washington, D.C. (the “Far Enemy”).

New York finance + the centers of the US government and its military might...hmmm....

You’ll note, of course, that eerily similar grievances and conspiracy theories are part and parcel of the mentality and motives of many, many 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Kind of like how Holocaust deniers just can’t help but show their anti-Semitism, and even outright Nazi sympathizing.

What I’m getting at is my increasingly strong suspicion that a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, like Holocaust deniers, hide behind their pet “theories” because they aren’t willing to come out and admit their approval of the attacks themselves. If that sounds harsh, then good. I don’t exactly have much patience with this crowd.
I would change that modifier to some. As I remember videos seemed to me, glossing over the crowd, that either they were caught up in mob mentality or simply have/had a deep mistrust in the Government to protest that it was "them" not 19 Muslims that carried out the attack plan crafter by another, KSM, and financed by another OBL(UBL).
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 03:17 AM   #155
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
For what it’s worth, you’ve just described - ironically - the kind of person inclined to join a terrorist group or commit a terrorist or other seemingly random murderous act of some kind - whether it be ideologically motivated (a Neo-Nazi or ISIS sympathizer running over people with his car), a school shooter, or, dare I say, a deeply frustrated, angry young man who decides to kill the President of the United States because he thinks that the notoriety of the act will somehow endear himself to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and/or Cuba.
Agreed.
I think this may have been posted before (apologies if it has: can't remember where I saw this), but there is evidence that belief in conspiracy theories can lead to an acceptance or desire for violent political acts.

It also appears that membership of a group can lead people to deviate from their usual moral codes, so as to conform to what they think the group expects from them. There is also the point that, if you're in a group, you have more anonymity, so explicit calls for violence can be made without risking too much individual responsibility or blowback.
Again, apologies if I'm reposting something I read elsewhere on this forum without acknowledging it. Still means we're learning stuff, right, even if we can't remember where we learned it.
We have already seen this in the attacks on 5G towers and telecoms personnel, that guy that shot up the pizza restaurant, and obviously- and distesslingly- anti-semitism is on the rise again.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.