Sorry, had to edit this post because I am a dumbass who needs to be able to identify buildings better.

but still, a few small fires?

galanter wrote:slincire,

by your logic I could offer the following as an equally compelling counter-theory.

"The flying spaghetti monster did it using an invisible death ray".

Where is the flying spaghetti monster? Where he needs to be to aim his weapon.

How does the death ray work? Sufficiently to knock down the twin towers.

etc etc etc

No, you're wrong, that's a faulty parallel. All of the variables in my hypothesis--which is a very weak an inexact one, but does explain how it could have happened, at a very base level--actually exist.
Governments.
Governmental resources.
Suicide bombers.
Governmental conspiracies.
Timed charges or remotely detonated charges.
People willing to do immoral or unethical things and then keep quiet about it.

Your hypothesis relies on two nonexistent variables, and therefore doesn't follow the same logic. If I had the time I'd bone up on my logic and give you some formulas, but I think the fact that I involve existent tool and players in mine, while you use a science fiction device and a the god of a mock-religion in yours clearly illustrates the greater possibility that mine is correct.

Again, what you are asking for is proof of a hypothesis similar to mine, despite your assertion that the hypothesis is all you're looking for. There are plenty of hypotheses out there of similar angle to what I presented, but far better thought out and delving into a far greater level of detail. And they very well could be proven or disproven, just like the official story, by an independent investigation or two.

This is the image of WTC7 just as it started to fall (penthouse has fallen, nothing else yet) There's a good deal of smoke. It looks like its coming from WTC7


It wasn't pouring out of the roof really. Plus, look behind her left shoulder. It is possible that that is the WTC7 smoke you seek. Could be wrong though.

Theres a video out with Aaron Brown just before the collapse that shows a lot of smoke too.

My point in raising the "flying spaghetti monster" thing was limited to making a point about posing a hypothesis. And that is that if a hypothesis is not detailed, but rather is posed in a "whatever it takes" way, it becomes unfalsifiable. And an unfalsifiable hypothesis cannot be subject to a scientific or rational analysis. It's a sort of victory by obscurity fallacy.

Somewhere on this board I posted what I would infer as what a slightly more detailed alternative hypothesis would have to be to correspond to the controlled demolition theory. I'll try to find that and restate it here. Then others can decide for themselves whether or not it is plausible. Or they can modify it to something more plausible.

oops...duplicate...sorry...

Rick Reuben wrote:Peter Tatchell wrote a brave article for todays's Guardian UK:

Yeah but noone's gonna listen to that guy, he likes men's bottoms.




(Joke, I actually like Tatchell a lot)

Here is what I previously posted elsewhere on this board:

galanter wrote:A couple hundred charges is a very conservative estimate. Keeping in mind that the Jone's camp claims the vertical beams were neatly cut into 30 foot sections, lets call that 3 stories. Lets say the towers were 100 stories tall. Lets say the core had 30 beams. (I can't remember the exact numbers here).
Thats 2 buildings times 30 beams times 33 sections...or 1980 cuts. And that's just the core beams. The Jones camp seems to say there were also charges on the outer walls of the building when they point out "squib" puffs of smoke in the videos.

Thermite charges would have to be pressed up against the girders to do their work. This would require ripping apart walls, placing explosives, and then (presumably) fixing the walls to hide the charges. And then there is the matter of fuses. Would they run from floor to floor? Or are there a set of fancy radio controlled sequential triggers? (And recall the problems emergency workers had getting radio reception).

(What the Jones camp doesn't mention is that the vertical beams were also *delivered* as 30 foot sections, and then bolted together. That, rather than charges every 3 stories, might explain how they came apart in 30 foot sections...if *that's* even mostly true, which I'm not sure has been established.)

Could the above be done without anyone noticing?

(Riding up on the top of the elevator wouldn't do it. As noted thermite has to be placed directly against the steel to be cut. (It's a cutting, not explosive, charge). Charges inside the elevator shaft could do a lot of damage, but not execute the nearly perfect controlled demolition the alternate theory puts forth.)

What's the deal with this "mystery" plane that CNN.Com has a video of?
Saying it flew over Washington on 9/11?

The video is messed up and I can't hear the sound.

I don't remember hearing anything about this before

galanter wrote:Here is what I previously posted elsewhere on this board:

galanter wrote:A couple hundred charges is a very conservative estimate. Keeping in mind that the Jone's camp claims the vertical beams were neatly cut into 30 foot sections, lets call that 3 stories. Lets say the towers were 100 stories tall. Lets say the core had 30 beams. (I can't remember the exact numbers here).
Thats 2 buildings times 30 beams times 33 sections...or 1980 cuts. And that's just the core beams. The Jones camp seems to say there were also charges on the outer walls of the building when they point out "squib" puffs of smoke in the videos.

Thermite charges would have to be pressed up against the girders to do their work. This would require ripping apart walls, placing explosives, and then (presumably) fixing the walls to hide the charges. And then there is the matter of fuses. Would they run from floor to floor? Or are there a set of fancy radio controlled sequential triggers? (And recall the problems emergency workers had getting radio reception).

(What the Jones camp doesn't mention is that the vertical beams were also *delivered* as 30 foot sections, and then bolted together. That, rather than charges every 3 stories, might explain how they came apart in 30 foot sections...if *that's* even mostly true, which I'm not sure has been established.)

Could the above be done without anyone noticing?

(Riding up on the top of the elevator wouldn't do it. As noted thermite has to be placed directly against the steel to be cut. (It's a cutting, not explosive, charge). Charges inside the elevator shaft could do a lot of damage, but not execute the nearly perfect controlled demolition the alternate theory puts forth.)

The elevators ran between the central columns in the core. They might have built walls to separate individual elevator shafts but I doubt it. I'm assuming that most of the beams would be exposed within the shafts themselves, so there would be no reason to rip through any walls. From inside the shafts you would be invisible to all but a maybe a few maintenance people. In a building of that size and complexity, very few people are going to know whether you should actually be there or not. If those people are on your team then nobody is watching.

I think there were 47 central core columns. 110 stories so maybe 36 sections. 2 buildings so 3384 cutting charges. Thats a lot, but I have no idea how long it would take to place them. Maybe there were more or less. I doubt any explosives would be placed on the exterior walls, with the center columns gone they would fail instantly.

I haven't found and admittedly haven't really looked that hard for reproductions of blueprints or photos that could further prove the plausibility of this scenario. Really I would hope that someone has already considered the possibility and supplied really good reasons why it couldn't have happened that way. Maybe you could direct me to the results of such an investigation.

interesting. that would explain the news coverage from the 11th, while there were still hijacked planes in the ar, when they stated one of the hijacked planes was a 747. maybe somebody got the hijackings mixed up with a mystery plane during the choas of the coverage. I haven't heard a single mention of a 747 since watching the coverage live that day, until now.

to think that it's odd for an E4 to be in the area is kinda silly to me. planes like those used for electronic intelligence ops are not something that any of us or any reporter know jack shit about. I mean, we know about the existence of at least some of these planes, and not likely all of them, but to think that anybody (who would talk about it) knows where they are or aren't, should or shouldn't be, that's quite naïve.

for example, what type of planes does the CIA use for all its various operations? you don't know, and you never will. that's how secret stuff works. it stays secret.

I just had a really weird thought about the time I saw a United Airlines jet departing from a US military airfield (not a joint use airfield, mind you).

but then again, everybody remembers how the airlines went bankrupt after 9/11, right?

anyway, it's like, dig and dig and dig, and let us know when you die of old age, exhaustion, or boredom, trying to get to the bottom that doesn't even exist.