9/11 NORAD tapes released...
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 23:15
VIEWED: 10691
PAGE 4 of 14
Quote:Let me preface with I am open to being wrong on this. But given what I've read so far, I believe that is exactly what happened. A crew of workmen professionally demolished the buildings. They must have had the credentials to do their work unhindered. Maybe those credentials were very good forgeries, or maybe they were authentic and authorized by our govt. Maybe the crew was ignored by officials on purpose or because of incompetence. Who knows? The fact that demolition requires a crew doesn't rule out the possibility.
Originally posted by citizen:
So for a controlled demolition we'd have to believe people working in those buildings just missed the hundreds of workmen removing and weakening support struts. That no one bothered to ask what the FK the guys with the wheel barrows full of plastic explosives thought they were doing?
Sorry, you'll have to do better than that to dismiss it.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
:hand sheepishly raised: I was just wondering - does anyone know if the atc tapes were confiscated and destroyed, and, does anyone know why building 7 came down?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.
Maybe it was more terrorists who are now walking around scott free because the govt refuses to investigate that scenario. I'd be less conspiracy minded if the govt would at least address this possibility. The govt's obtuse refusal to acknowledge the demolition theory at all is what makes me suspicious. Is the govt trying to hide complicity or gross incompetence by sweeping this possibility under the rug?
I dunno.
Okay. Now let's establish how much confidence you have in that position. What percentage of your family's assets would you wager that, "SOMEONE demolished those buildings"? Seventy-five percent? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent?
To address the first point you raised, let me walk you through my thought processes as I listened to the presentation and Q&A.
Are the presented alternatives plausible based on my own understanding? Check
Is this my field? No
What is the reaction of the civil engineering professors and graduate students in the audience and what are the nature of their questions and the nature of the responses? There is no indication that the professors and graduate students I recognize think the presented alternatives are implausible.
Repeat for those in material science, etc.
Now it's Rumsfeld time. Is it an appeal to authority? Absolutely. In my field it is important to be able to design products in domains that you may not have any previous experience with. You have to come up to speed quickly and develop enough of an understanding to identify who is and who is not an expert in that field and ask the experts intelligent questions. So my tendency is to watch the experts because there is no time nor need to become an expert myself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jet fuel is kerosene. I've seen kerosene burn. It's not super magic fuel that nobody's seen before.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Have you ever seen a fire fueled by airplane fuel?
Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.
Ah, well. . .far be it for me to ask questions, ignorant little peon that I am. If the EXPERTS have decided, they must have thought of all these things already.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No I don't. Saying they had papers means nothing.
You can't just prepare a building for demolition without someone noticing. People would notice their building being cut to shreds, people in other buildings would notice. They'd be dragging shitloads of crap out of those buildings, dump trucks taking it away, where are all these off cuts? How come no one noticed them.
Why does coming up with such an impractical unlikely and unworkable theory make the idea of two buildings collapsing more believable than them collapsing after being hit by great big bloody planes?
How come a building collapsing after being hit by a plane is unbelievable but hundreds of workmen slowly deconstructing a building around the workers and drilling plastic explosives into the support struts right in front of them while no one thinks "hang on that's a little bit funny?" is more likely?
Quote:Hold on, this suggests no planes actually hit the WTC, those were some pretty amazing special effects...
Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As an aside, from what I remember, the jet fuel burned off rather quickly. Kind of like lighter fluid on charcoal. The lighter fluid burns off rapidly but serves the purpose of starting the fire. To assume that the jet fuel burning had little or no impact on the collapse is to assume the workspaces had nothing flammible in them.
And you don't have to melt the steel. Just compromise the structural integrity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:67.587%? Good grief, what's with trying to force me into a corner, just because I dare to ask questions?
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. Now let's establish how much confidence you have in that position. What percentage of your family's assets would you wager that, "SOMEONE demolished those buildings"? Seventy-five percent? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent?
Quote:There could be MORE THAN ONE plausible explanation. What I want to know is why only ONE of them is presented as the ONLY plausible explanation. Why do people who mention other plausible explanations immediately ridiculed as a conspiracy nut instead of having their questions answered?
There is no indication that the professors and graduate students I recognize think the presented alternatives are implausible.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.
But what color does wood burn? What color does drywall burn? What color does carpet burn or does it burn the color of the carpet?
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The whole 9/11 tragedy never fails to bring up sad memories as well as heated debate between the conspiracy and non-conspiracy crowds. My intent in starting this discussion was to point out the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the Northeast command center of NORAD on the day of the attack, and to bring the recently released transcripts to everyone’s attention.
If you would rather discuss the engineering aspects of the building collapse or whether President Bush was in fact a major player in the most heinous act of aggression on American soil in recent memory, that’s fine I suppose, but it was the transcript of the that day that really got my attention. I believe there is an audio file on the Vanity Fair site if anyone is interested.
Personally, I would rather not get into the whole conspiracy aspect of the story. Hell, I’m still waiting for definitive evidence that Oswald wasn’t the lone gunman…..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
67.587%? Good grief, what's with trying to force me into a corner, just because I dare to ask questions?
...
There could be MORE THAN ONE plausible explanation. What I want to know is why only ONE of them is presented as the ONLY plausible explanation. Why do people who mention other plausible explanations immediately ridiculed as a conspiracy nut instead of having their questions answered?
What I'm trying to get at with the money question is to understand what level of credence you lend to the alternative explanations. At the abstract level, anything is possible. I have found that when people start tying their beliefs to real world results that impact their pocket book then they apply a different level of skepticism. For example, I'm confident that the collapse of the WTC was due to the impact from the planes (eta: shorthand for: initial structural weakening followed by further weakening due to fire followed by collapse). But I'm pretty risk adverse. So I wouldn't wager more than X percent of my assets on that position (where I haven't quite decided what X would be but it's a number << 25%). I would wager zero percent of my assets on any other position.
Are the alternatives really plausible? Or are they just possible.
*edited to add: Let me try this on for size.
"What do you think of that car?"
"Oh man. It's great. I love it. It looks so cool."
"Would you buy it?"
"Hell no. It eats up gas. Those things are always breaking down. You can only fit two people in it." etc.
"What do you think happened at the WTC?"
"Well, there's a bunch of theories floating around the internet that the buildings where demolished, the planes didn't really fly into the buildings, the planes were allowed to fly into the buildings, just a bunch of different things that could've happened that no one in a position of authority wants to talk about."
"Which one of those theories would you spend money on?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME