larsro wrote:controlled explosives were obviously used

What evidence did you find compelling? I've seen none...

i'm not a full-time 9-11 addict, so i don't maintain lists of references or anything. saw a speech some professor gave a few months ago which is up on youtube which was very convincing. just googled for "controlled explosives 9 11" and the first hit alone isn't too shabby:

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/

I'd encourage you to check out

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

larsro wrote:i'm not a full-time 9-11 addict, so i don't maintain lists of references or anything. saw a speech some professor gave a few months ago which is up on youtube which was very convincing. just googled for "controlled explosives 9 11" and the first hit alone isn't too shabby:

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/

I have to go with this as well. The probability of those explosions NOT being controlled is slim, according to lots of reasonable testimony and straightforward explanations by 'experts'. Once again, though, the highly politicized nature of the results (of the actual 'attack', that is) make it impossible to get down to brass tacks. Indeed, it is the political fallout that will impact all our lives for awhile. Significantly.

galanter wrote:I'd encourage you to check out

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

These are interesting statements, and some of it is probably beyond refute. The 'attached pod' observation, for example, seems plausable. However, when weighted against the 'pros' as a whole, the 'cons' seem focused through a lens of predeterminism. When an article opens with the idea of 'debunking poisonous theories', as opposed to the idea of at least entertaining the theories involved...there is a pretty obvious focus to the arguments. Not objective enough...not for me...

rayj wrote:

galanter wrote:I'd encourage you to check out

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

When an article opens with the idea of 'debunking poisonous theories', as opposed to the idea of at least entertaining the theories involved...there is a pretty obvious focus to the arguments. Not objective enough...not for me...

i agree, rayj. in my opinion, several of the claims they debunk are the really unplausible ones which i find exaggerated, such as the planes hitting WTCs 1 & 2 not being the passenger planes the official version claims.

but i don't think the article succeeds in counter-balancing all of the other massive incongruities in the official version of the story at all.

there are some pretty odd statements too, like (referring to the supposed plane which hit the Pentagon):

"What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass."

i don't know there - a little too popular for my mechanics...

This conspiracy thrives by focusing people's attention on things like speculation about motives and relationships of those involved.

But when you look at the purely physical evidence, which in a case like this is the best evidence (in the legal sense), there just isn't any there there.

For example, the bulidings falling straight down at near free-fall rates...contrary to what the conspiracy folks will claim, this is exactly what one would expect from the standard theory. No squibs required. No building cap sliding off to the side and landing blocks away.

Additionally the powdering of the remains, including the cap, is exactly what the physics would predict.

The vertical beams being sheared by the falling mass...totally expected by the standard theory.

The building 7 collapse...you have to understand the building in all 3 dimensions...from the limited view of the often cited footage hides the full nature of the damage on the other side.

The supposedly small hole left in the Pentagon turns out to be much larger than the conspiracy-buffs say it is.

And yes, an airplane that has shattered upon a 500 mph impact *is* more like a liquid than a solid...its a cloud of small pieces each moving on its own but retaining a great deal of momentum.

In this case don't follow the money...or the fallacious guilt by association...

follow the physics.

(Not individual physicists...the actual physics itself...)

( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

clocker bob wrote:9/11 is a weapon to kill Muslims, and you will love 9/11 for its dark power forever.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.


you're fucking hilarious.