WTC controlled demolition theory challenged

[Stoned_Rider]

A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.

The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

Although the causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.

Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.

Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering, was moved to find a scientific explanation for the collapse when he heard about reports of possible insider involvement. Claims of ?controlled demolition? were being suggested, in order to explain the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

?I thought immediately that there had to be a rational explanation for why collapse happened as it did, one which draws on engineering principles,? he said. ?After searching the current literature, it became clear that many studies focused on the phase just before collapse settles in.

?They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.?

Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.

He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or ?pan-caking? of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.

This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down ? just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower.

?The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began,? he said.

?In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected.?
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002

[Spring]

Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.

I really don't see how this study disproves those theories. It looks like it pretty much just says, "Planes could have caused the damage necessary to bring the towers down".

[MacGuffin]

You can't disprove nutjob theories. One shouldn't even try. The burden of proof is on them.

[Helios]

I have told this before, my uncle lived in the height's, just across the river from downtown. They watched the opening moment from their building.

One of the neighbors was as engineer of some sort, who was familair with the WTC and how they were built. He watching the fire and seeing the dull glow in the steel predicted "they will collapse in x-mins". As it turned out he was correct with in just a hand full is minutes. This tells me the officail version' is pretty possible. (unless he was a NSA mole?)


I also know from various people who can comfirm there was a wider plot with more aircraft planned for that day. But only this part worked out.

[Huston]

I have told this before, my uncle lived in the height's, just across the river from downtown. They watched the opening moment from their building.

One of the neighbors was as engineer of some sort, who was familair with the WTC and how they were built. He watching the fire and seeing the dull glow in the steel predicted "they will collapse in x-mins". As it turned out he was correct with in just a hand full is minutes. This tells me the officail version' is pretty possible. (unless he was a NSA mole?)

I was only half way through school (architecture) when I figured out how easy they would collapse. Thats what happens when you try to save money. Guess they never heard about Icarus. Would the Empire state building fall down like that? No. Petronas Towers? No. (good luck bringing those down). Quite a few skyscrapers in the U.S. are designed like the WTC, a tube. It is a good principle though.

[Intension]

I was only half way through school (architecture) when I figured out how easy they would collapse. Thats what happens when you try to save money. Guess they never heard about Icarus. Would the Empire state building fall down like that? No. Petronas Towers? No. (good luck bringing those down). Quite a few skyscrapers in the U.S. are designed like the WTC, a tube. It is a good principle though.

It's my (unqualified) view that the WTC's tube design is good for delaying collapse (by effectively redistributing loads) but bad for ultimately preventing collapse (by allowing such vast unsupported interior spaces). The Empire State by contrast is not as integrated a structure, so if you destroy enough columns in one part, right away some portion will collapse, but perhaps not the whole thing.

[stopharian]

All the weird stuff went on at the pentagon anyway

[Night]

All the weird stuff went on at the pentagon anyway


...such as?

[Biff_Loman]

I guess it's possible that we're committing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy by observing that the buildings collapsed after being hit by planes. The planes could have been thrown in for - you know - effect.

But I don't think so.

[Night]

I have told this before, my uncle lived in the height's, just across the river from downtown. They watched the opening moment from their building.

One of the neighbors was as engineer of some sort, who was familair with the WTC and how they were built. He watching the fire and seeing the dull glow in the steel predicted "they will collapse in x-mins". As it turned out he was correct with in just a hand full is minutes. This tells me the officail version' is pretty possible. (unless he was a NSA mole?)


Wait...what?




I also know from various people who can comfirm there was a wider plot with more aircraft planned for that day. But only this part worked out.


This statement makes little sense to me. "Various people who can comfirm[sic] there was a wider plot with more aircraft" is a difficult statement to decipher.

Are you suggesting Al Qaeda is behind the additional aircraft? Or, are you implying that certain domestic components were responsible from within America?


Either way, I'm gonna have to call bullshit.



Memory is inherently subject to revision and is tailored to the biases of the observer. As such, it seems likely you would have configured your recollection at some point to support your current beliefs. Moreover, many people speculated on the ultimate end of the WTC towers -- especially when the 2nd plane hit. Approximating possible collapse times (which is what I assume happened, as you inserted "x" instead of an exact number when referencing your engineer neighbor's timetable) does not necessarily create successful forecasting.


Conspiracy theories are annoying. Often, individuals pick-and-choose facts in an effort to bolster their perspective. I don't think I need to explain why selective fact gathering is destructive. I've noticed that many also adopt an "inverted" scientific method approach (wherein the conclusion is reconciled before data is gathered).


It was a horrible event. Yet, simply because an event like 9/11 initiates international conflict does not necessarily mean its creation would require an equal amount of effort to execute. Ignore Newton.

There were no shadowy world organizations or intra-departmental connections (to your NSA point) quietly responsible for 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11. Offer empirical evidence to the contrary if you'd like to be taken seriously.


I love creativity and innovation, yet I don't feel arguments centered on anecdotal evidence or after-the-fact reasoning are valuable. In fact, it seems that these mentalities tend to socially damage the falsifiable analysis offered by legitimate evaluative bodies. (the misguided success of Loose Change is a quick example)


In the end, conspiracy theories impede progress by distracting us from the realities of the event.

Please do not impede progress.

[Night]

I guess it's possible that we're committing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy by observing that the buildings collapsed after being hit by planes. The planes could have been thrown in for - you know - effect.

But I don't think so.


Interesting. To me, it seems less reasonable to assume that a confederation of individuals would be able to synthesize a 9/11 type event and then offer objective, internationally supported, evidence to cover their tracks. Moreover, this same group of individuals would likewise be responsible for rigidly controlling (over the course of years) the socio-political ideologies of Al Qaeda (who have subsequently taken responsibility for the event) and convince them to fight and die en masse -- all just to maintain the secrecy of the original "conspiracy".


I know that's not what you're positing. :) Yet, as other comments within this thread suggest, it seems other posters might believe such nonsense.

[Archvile]

I'm heavily bored right now, so I'm gonne take a shot at this, so let's get it staight: These are some arguments I can recall from memory, feel free to add more!

Arguments in favour of Controlled Demolition:

+ almost perfect collapse to the footprints
+ reports of strage 'dust' weeks before the event
+ explosions minutes before the actual collapse
+ heavy damage in the lobby area (evidenced in video)
+ melting point of steel above fuel burning temperature
+ removal of security measures days before the event
+ reports of 'construction' work on some floors
+ collapse of wtc 7, which was further away than some other buildings, that are still standing
+ people standing in the impact gashes suggesting a low teperature or no fires at all
+ 'terrorists' had to had sophisticated knowledge about the buildings way of construction to predict their collapse. Note that even experts are not able to agree on a definite (non conspiracy) explanation
+ strange choice of time for the execution of the attacks. If the 'terrorists' wanted to kill as many poeple as possible, why did they attack in the morning rather than at noon?
+ post 9/11 Anthrax terror (do you remember?); (to keep important poeple quiet?)
+ was the thermite really only used to remove debris?
+ most importantly: both buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds 'free fall' style with absolutely no resistance from the lower structure

Arguments against Controlled Demolition:

- reports of no financial gain or even losses for the owners (insurence companies not paying etc.)
- elaborated plans of the attacks do not match with the subsequent chaos and failed wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)
- too many poeple would have been involved, why has nothing significant leaked yet?
- no party (neither oil companies, governments or 'terrorists') had enough gain from the attacks to justify their scale
- fuel burning not reaching the steel's melting point, but still hot enough to weaken the core.
- columns destroyed by impact
- most importantly: both buildings started to topple exactly at the place of impact, a 'usual' demolition looks very differently! there are only two ways to explain this (for conspiracy theorists) 1) the detonation sequence was 'programmed' to start at the impact places (either 'live' or in advance); or 2) the 'main' detonations were in the garage or below the ground, weakening the core structure while 'hiding' it from the outside view. pre-collapse explosions support this idea.

As you see, the 'pro' arguments out-number the cons, but some of the cons have more weight to balance them out. Now it's up to you; choose your side, but do so wisely! :ph34r:

[garak]

Arguments in favour of Controlled Demolition:

+ melting point of steel above fuel burning temperature

I don't know how many times I've seen this mentioned and wanted to cry at its stupidity. Do people think steel is at 100% strength all the way up to some magical temperature, and then BAM, it just turns into a flowing liquid? No, it softens as it gets hotter. It will bend long before it will completely melt. And bending is all you need for the integrity of a structure to be compromised.

[Archvile]

I don't know how many times I've seen this mentioned and wanted to cry at its stupidity. Do people think steel is at 100% strength all the way up to some magical temperature, and then BAM, it just turns into a flowing liquid? No, it softens as it gets hotter. It will bend long before it will completely melt. And bending is all you need for the integrity of a structure to be compromised.

Did you read my entire post?



Arguments against Controlled Demolition:

- fuel burning not reaching the steel's melting point, but still hot enough to weaken the core.

I don't claim those to be facts or even accurate. These are random aspects I've picked up over the years, not all of them represent my opinion.
.

[Night]

I'm heavily bored right now, so I'm gonne take a shot at this, so let's get it staight: These are some arguments I can recall from memory, feel free to add more!

Arguments in favour of Controlled Demolition:

+ almost perfect collapse to the footprints
+ reports of strage 'dust' weeks before the event
+ explosions minutes before the actual collapse
+ heavy damage in the lobby area (evidenced in video)
+ melting point of steel above fuel burning temperature
+ removal of security measures days before the event
+ reports of 'construction' work on some floors
+ collapse of wtc 7, which was further away than some other buildings, that are still standing
+ people standing in the impact gashes suggesting a low teperature or no fires at all
+ 'terrorists' had to had sophisticated knowledge about the buildings way of construction to predict their collapse. Note that even experts are not able to agree on a definite (non conspiracy) explanation
+ strange choice of time for the execution of the attacks. If the 'terrorists' wanted to kill as many poeple as possible, why did they attack in the morning rather than at noon?
+ post 9/11 Anthrax terror (do you remember?); (to keep important poeple quiet?)
+ most importantly: both buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds 'free fall' style with absolutely no resistance from the lower structure




+ almost perfect collapse to the footprints --

This sounds circumstantial and does not necessarily suggest anything other than an airplane injection...I havent personally examined airplane crash sites vs- non airplane, yet I will bet you dollars to donuts that a "perfect" collapse to the footprints does not necessarily suggest controlled demolition.... :)

+ reports of strage 'dust' weeks before the event --

I havent read anything about this specifically. I wonder if the "dust" was instead particulate pollution? For a quick example, see Los Angeles smog. (And no -- smog is not wholly based on climate. Travel to Chicago around any major holiday!)

+ explosions minutes before the actual collapse --

probably as a result of the impact craters created by the airplanes. Force = mass x velocity. Planes are huge and move quickly -- it seems that tiny explosions would naturally preface something like the structural collapse of a skyscraper. It could range from gas pipes bursting or windows exploding as a result of the many, many fires the planes certainly created...

+ heavy damage in the lobby area (evidenced in video) --

see above answer for probable explanation. Also, energy tends to choose the path of least resistance when expanding (especially when inside a closed system, as was partially the case with the WTC buildings.) Whatever energy (whether concussive, heat-based, etc) wasnt able to immediately escape via the wound fissures or through windows would probably have been forced downward, so as to reconcile its output)

+ melting point of steel above fuel burning temperature --

this point fails to address the importance of the impact energy generated by the primary impact source (airplanes) and secondary impact sources that probably increased the efficiency of the flames (gas via compromised pipes; office materials; whatever..). So, as this point doesnt address the importance of the primary impact source in terms of influencing the efficiency of the fires it subsequently produced, I don't believe it can be logically valid in its current state.

+ removal of security measures days before the event --

odd, but not necessarily related. Many organizations rotate their workforce / resources based on perceived need and financial constraints. As 9/11 was a wholly unique experience, it doesnt seem likely that individuals were prepared (security measures or not) to defend against such a catastrophic event. Don't forget, pre-9/11 intelligence was a sloppy maze of miscommunication between departments and misrepresentation of data. The 9/11 Commission corroborated that perspective in their report.

+ reports of 'construction' work on some floors

I just fixed my faucet this morning because of a leak. Does this mean I'm trying to create an environment that would be hospitable for terrorists? Seriously though, most buildings require almost-perpetual care in terms of ensuring fundamental building code is followed (repair of fire alarms; elevator diagnostics; air-conditioning repair... Plus, just because "construction work" was reported, it does not logically bridge our outcome to a domestically-managed affair. Haha..when would these individuals meet to discuss their nefarious deeds? The WTC was a 24-hour saloon, friends. As the economic nexus of NYC (and, arguably, one of the most important buildings in Western culture), I find it highly unlikely that a team could outfox the combined perceptions of thousands of casual workers. This isn't the movies.

+ collapse of wtc 7, which was further away than some other buildings, that are still standing

I'm not a structural engineer, so I couldnt dissect the academics of this one. Yet, do people scream conspiracy when a car accident kills only certain passengers and leaves others unharmed? Moreover, it doesnt seem logical to assume that cancer affects only certain folks while deliberately avoiding others? The answer remains above my academic experience but probably deals with the dynamic interaction of energy relative to the debris produced by the first WTC collapses

+ people standing in the impact gashes suggesting a low teperature or no fires at all

I'm guessing not everyone stood in the same place....?

+ 'terrorists' had to had sophisticated knowledge about the buildings way of construction to predict their collapse. Note that even experts are not able to agree on a definite (non conspiracy) explanation

While I'm certainly not an expert on structural engineering, I do believe it is logical to assume that intangible, providential occurrences assisted in the ultimate success of their plot. That, and I feel it is dismissive to assume that the operatives responsible did not do an excessive amount of research before their attacks (flight planning; financial investment; political maneuvering -- see Osama's killing of a critical Northern Alliance leader on 9/9 as a way to grease the wheels for the secrecy surrouding his exile by the Taliban). Also, many of these nutjobs had advanced degrees...see Mohammad Atta as a quick example.

+ strange choice of time for the execution of the attacks. If the 'terrorists' wanted to kill as many poeple as possible, why did they attack in the morning rather than at noon?

This is a strange point. I dont think its really relevant as deducing the implied motivations of others is an impossible task to undertake. But, why not in the early morning hours? Its possible they wanted to capitalize on collateral damage afflicted to those not directly in the WTC (early morning commuters; pedestrians..etc)

+ post 9/11 Anthrax terror (do you remember?); (to keep important poeple quiet?)

I remember. I don't feel like its related, though. This question is a great example of after-the-fact reasoning. Maybe they just wanted people to take more time away from the office? Sounds silly? It's as credible as the alternative point offered by this question

+ most importantly: both buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds 'free fall' style with absolutely no resistance from the lower structure

Gravity is a bitch. The destruction we see in films isn't always real, guys. Buildings can cave-in and decimate their support structures quickly. Again, its all about force and its opposition to gravity. Why not 10 seconds?




Whew! Thanks for the queries. They give insight into the mentalities of the opposition and offer hope for those who value empirical truth over infotainment "science" offered in movies. Again, I'm certainly not an expert and am probably simplifying many aspects of the WTC collapse.

As a final note, I think you will notice that many of the bullet points offered by conspiracy theorists dont live up to the standards they demand of others. I think you will notice that most work to create doubt vs. producing legitimate, falsifable, controlled, empirical data. That alone should suggest quite a bit.....




Just stay calm and remain open-minded. Science always wins. :)

[Night]

As you see, the 'pro' arguments out-number the cons, but some of the cons have more weight to balance them out. Now it's up to you; choose your side, but do so wisely! :ph34r:



I disagree. I dont believe the articles offered are a concise measure of the meatier points either side treasures. I am absolutely certain more arguments are available.

Nothing against you, it just seems like this issue probably extends beyond the scope of simple forum discussion.

[Baltar]

Controlled demolition is irrelevant. The first question on my mind that day was the massive, unprecedented air defense failures. Fucking Richard Myers was promoted from NORAD to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs afterwards. Let's not forget the PNAC, and the political usefulness of the War on Terror as well as the money being made by those close to the Bush Administration. Too many coincidences. No conspiracy, either, someone may have just left the door open.

[Night]

Controlled demolition is irrelevant. The first question on my mind that day was the massive, unprecedented air defense failures. Fucking Richard Myers was promoted from NORAD to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs afterwards. Let's not forget the PNAC, and the political usefulness of the War on Terror as well as the money being made by those close to the Bush Administration. Too many coincidences. No conspiracy, either, someone may have just left the door open.


Someone certainly "dropped the ball" which created an idealized scenario for attack, I agree.

Yet, let's be calm here. Richard Myers appointment isnt necessarily related to the controlled demolition theory. Also, the concept of promotion based on "who you know" versus occupational merit is certainly nothing new. The term is officially called "Cronyism" and was invented by English lords sometime during the Renaissance period.

Our current administration is helmed by a mongoloid. I agree. It is likely (even agreed upon by the 9/11 Commission as probable fact) that our current administration -- and the one immediately preceeding it -- did not give proper visiblity to Islamic extremists. Yet, I do not believe that any single act (or series of acts) would have necessarily prevented a 9/11 type event from eventually happening. If you look at the pattern of facts (stemming from the '93 WTC bombings), there was clear interest to shed American blood on American soil.

Islamic extremists are finally responsible for the immediate expression of horror on 9/11. Reduced to the simplest of terms, Osama Bin Laden's organization killed thousands on 9/11. They are responsible for 9/11.

Historically, Osama was influenced by a militant pilgrim who ventured into America in the late 1940's. Sayyid Al Qutb is our devil and is essentially responsible for the resurrection of Jihad into contemporary extremist vernacular.

[Thor]

Arguments in favour of Controlled Demolition:

1 almost perfect collapse to the footprints
Unless the building were to topple over sideways, this would be expected. Structurally, there isn't anything in the design or structure of these buildings that would lead them to fail by toppling.

2 reports of strage 'dust' weeks before the event
Could be anything really

3 explosions minutes before the actual collapse
Structural assemblies failing under stress sound just like explosions. Rock or concrete often DOES fail 'explosively' under excessive load.


4 heavy damage in the lobby area (evidenced in video)
Not sure about this one, but a large impact toward the upper portion of the building would put a torque on the structure that would try to bend it around the foundation and the lobby would probably be a prime area for this to show visibly.

5 melting point of steel above fuel burning temperature
It loses most of it's strength at relatively low temperatures in the upper hundreds of degrees. Thousands not required. Even the Blackbird (SR-71) which employed Titanium (Melts at 3,000F) was substantially weakened by temperatures around 800F.

6 removal of security measures days before the event
Outside my scope of knowledge

7 reports of 'construction' work on some floors
Also outside my scope of knowledge, however, renovation and construction are not out of the ordinary for any building.

8 collapse of wtc 7, which was further away than some other buildings, that are still standingWhile I do not have knowledge of how the wtc 7 building may have been damaged, I do not see evidence of controlled demolition. There is no progressive chain of failure zones, no visible evidence of timed blasts, no visible signs of detonating charges themselves. I've been around a lot of industrial explosive work and what I see in the video is not what I see in the field. (It does seem odd that the building collapsed though, so I'd like to see more information on how it was damaged.)


9 people standing in the impact gashes suggesting a low teperature or no fires at all People jumping from flaming impact gashes suggest high temperature and fires. This also assumes that ignition sources and flammable material were uniformly distributed. One would not expect to see as much fire activity at the entrance as opposed to an exit gash of an impact.


10 'terrorists' had to had sophisticated knowledge about the buildings way of construction to predict their collapse. Note that even experts are not able to agree on a definite (non conspiracy) explanationSophisticated knowledge about the buildings construction should be readily available to even the curious member of the general public through requesting contract documents and construction records. Secondly, if terrorists are smart enough to organize and send numbers of people to train as pilots, they're certainly smart enough to consult or recruit structural engineers.

11 strange choice of time for the execution of the attacks. If the 'terrorists' wanted to kill as many poeple as possible, why did they attack in the morning rather than at noon?It is again not my area of expertise, but it is my understanding that morning flights are generally more reliable, have better on-time status and less chance of delay than busier times of day. It makes sense to plan a coordinated attack at times when service is likely to be more predictable. Also, aviation weather is often more stable in the mornings before the heat of the day can begin to have effect.

12 post 9/11 Anthrax terror (do you remember?); (to keep important poeple quiet?)This is outside my area of knowledge, but the nuts do tend to come out of the woodwork when something big happens. It seems to be common with bomb scares and the like.

13 was the thermite really only used to remove debris?The molten material described as 'thermite' could have been anything. I've seen wooden structures burn and produce similar looking 'molten' material and there certainly wasn't any thermite involved. It could have been molten and burning plastics, carpeting, and many other flammable and potentially molten materials. Additionally, aluminum, especially when contaminated, CAN glow just like any other molten material when exposed to higher temperatures. A molten material CAN be heated beyond the melting point to increasingly greater temperatures right up to the boiling point.

14 most importantly: both buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds 'free fall' style with absolutely no resistance from the lower structureResistance would not be expected from the support-shattering effect of a catastrophic structural failure. Bolts and welds are sheared in a dynamic process through shock loading. By the time significant force has built up, the support has already failed through shear and can NOT impede 'free fall' by deformation or internal friction.


Arguments against Controlled Demolition:
(quite a few snipped)

- 2) the 'main' detonations were in the garage or below the ground, weakening the core structure while 'hiding' it from the outside view. pre-collapse explosions support this idea.

Actually, pre-collapse 'explosions' as heard by witnesses were FAR more likely to be incipient structural failure.


So from a technical standpoint, I don't see controlled demolition being the more likely explanation.

[Biff_Loman]

I don't know how many times I've seen this mentioned and wanted to cry at its stupidity. Do people think steel is at 100% strength all the way up to some magical temperature, and then BAM, it just turns into a flowing liquid? No, it softens as it gets hotter. It will bend long before it will completely melt. And bending is all you need for the integrity of a structure to be compromised.

I thought the steel was supposed to be sublimating. Is the vaporisation point of steel higher than that of burning jet fuel. ????

That's why the buildings collapsed into such little piles. . . they evaporated. From the tiny nuclear devices that were used in controlled demolition.

This is fun. I almost want to make a webpage convincing people that the WTC was reduced to steel vapour.

[Night]

I thought the steel was supposed to be sublimating. Is the vaporisation point of steel higher than that of burning jet fuel. ????

That's why the buildings collapsed into such little piles. . . they evaporated. From the tiny nuclear devices that were used in controlled demolition.

This is fun. I almost want to make a webpage convincing people that the WTC was reduced to steel vapour.


Not to be a tightass, but dont lose sight of the thousands who died. This really isn't a humorous matter.

[ApeTheDog]

Not to be a tightass, but dont lose sight of the thousands who died. This really isn't a humorous matter.

I must disagree with you on a certain number of points, good sir.

None of the family members of people who died there are reading this thread. None of the ones who died are reading it either.

I do agree with your "let's not be a tightass" comment, though. Let's not.

[Night]

I must disagree with you on a certain number of points, good sir.

None of the family members of people who died there are reading this thread. None of the ones who died are reading it either.

I do agree with your "let's not be a tightass" comment, though. Let's not.


Incorrect.

[Biff_Loman]

I'm liable to be flippant towards any conspiracy theory. You are obviously taking refuting these crackpot ideas very seriously.

[ApeTheDog]

Incorrect.

I'm sorry, then, and apologize. I guess you're talking about yourself.

You should note that Biff was not making fun of the people who died, but of the ones who were coming up with conspiracy theories. He doesn't say anything about the ones who suffered, or still suffer because they lost someone. He's just ragging on those who would use this as a way to serve their purpose.

Those who would use 9/11 as a political thing? Wrong.
Those who want to use this to take a shot at the government? Wrong, in my opinion.

Nobody is making fun of the people who died, but we can talk about it, and about the ways in which this affected the world. And some people are really ridiculous in how far they take this. I don't think there's anything wrong in pointing that out, and I would go so far as to say you'd not even be doing the people who died a favor by staying silent.

But, nobody knows how it has been for you, and how this has affected you, and we do have to respect that.

[Night]

I'm sorry, then, and apologize. I guess you're talking about yourself.

You should note that Biff was not making fun of the people who died, but of the ones who were coming up with conspiracy theories. He doesn't say anything about the ones who suffered, or still suffer because they lost someone. He's just ragging on those who would use this as a way to serve their purpose.

Those who would use 9/11 as a political thing? Wrong.
Those who want to use this to take a shot at the government? Wrong, in my opinion.

Nobody is making fun of the people who died, but we can talk about it, and about the ways in which this affected the world. And some people are really ridiculous in how far they take this. I don't think there's anything wrong in pointing that out, and I would go so far as to say you'd not even be doing the people who died a favor by staying silent.

But, nobody knows how it has been for you, and how this has affected you, and we do have to respect that.


:) Quite alright!


I get too serious sometimes. I probably overstepped my place in trying to hardline the thread.

[earwax]

+ strange choice of time for the execution of the attacks. If the 'terrorists' wanted to kill as many poeple as possible, why did they attack in the morning rather than at noon?

:blink:
:blink:

Uh, it was morning rush hour. Ever been in Manhattan around 9 AM?

[Archvile]

:blink:
:blink:

Uh, it was morning rush hour. Ever been in Manhattan around 9 AM?

Various news sources claimed the buildings weren't full before noon and that therefore the casualties had been lower. ~3000 instead of 6k or more. (However I of course can't confirm any of these...)
The observation platform (which I've visited personally) didn't open before 10am afaik.

[Night]

Various news sources claimed the buildings weren't full before noon and that therefore the casualties had been lower. ~3000 instead of 6k or more. (However I of course can't confirm any of these...)
The observation platform (which I've visited personally) didn't open before 10am afaik.

Curious, yet problematically anecdotal. Hard facts please, chum.



As a side note, Archvile, what is your perspective on this issue?

[Archvile]

Curious, yet problematically anecdotal. Hard facts please, chum.

Now that I think back, I believe it was reported in German tv, not sure though.



As a side note, Archvile, what is your perspective on this issue?

Right now, I'm on totally neutral ground. There've been very good (and bad) arguments from both sides. We could assume, the 'truth' lies somewhere in the middle. (Incompetence theory (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html#_Toc11659702) <- not necessarily my opinion)

[Night]

Now that I think back, I believe it was reported in German tv, not sure though.



Right now, I'm on totally neutral ground. There've been very good (and bad) arguments from both sides. We could assume, the 'truth' lies somewhere in the middle. (Incompetence theory (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html#_Toc11659702) <- not necessarily my opinion)

I like your fundamental position. It is important to remain objective.

When you do decide to render judgment, I hope you will analyze the volumes of concrete data offered by mainstream scientific sources against the utter lack of anything scientifically defensible offered by conspiracy sources and, in your final estimation, find the scientific elements superior.

Thanks for the vivid discussion points.