galanter wrote:
Could someone explain to me how both towers could be rigged with enough explosives to bring them both down, and nobody noticed? (For example, charges have to be placed right up against the steel girders, and that would require walls to be torn open in at least a couple hundred places).

Check out Prof. Steven Jones' analysis on this issue. He's a physics professor from BYU with over 40 peer-reviewed articles. He claims that whoever planted the charges used thermate explosives, which are the cutting edge in the demolition of strong structures these days. In Jones's words, thermate charges cut through thick steel "as though a hot knife were cutting through a stick of butter." Hence, you might be overestimating the number of places (i.e., "a couple hundred") where charges needed to be planted. After all, a relatively small number of strategically-placed explosives might have done the job.

And don't underestimate the CIA's ability to sneak into buildings and plant whatever they want to plant in them. That's their job, after all.

galanter wrote:I've now been pointed via PM to CB's bye-bye. Thanks for that.

To those giving 9/11 issues serious consideration...

Jumping from motivation to accusation ("X could gain by it, therefore X did it") is never a terribly strong argument.

I'd suggest looking at physical evidence, physics, and practical logistics, and ignoring for the moment "why therefore who" thinking.

If you do that (1) you will be much more scientific in your approach and (2) the "inside job conspiracy" will suddenly deflate to nothingness.

I'm not jumping from motivation to accusation. However, in this case, the motivation--instilling a permanent U.S. military presence in the Caspian Oil Basin for the forseeable future--is, undeniably, very strong.

I've read about the physics and about the chemical evidence found from the site. As I said above, check out Prof. Steven Jones's analysis on these heads.

Also, since you're so high on physical evidence, why don't you try to give me a reason why WTC7 needed to collapse?

As far as the Peak Oil issue goes, I'd recommend that anyone interested in 9/11 read this lengthy and informative article by William Clark. He details both the economic and energy-related motivations for the Iraq War.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

"Summary

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century."

galanter wrote:
If you do that (1) you will be much more scientific in your approach and (2) the "inside job conspiracy" will suddenly deflate to nothingness.

I know it's difficult to consider the official story a hoax. I also thought that the alternative explanations were mere conspiracy theories.

But claiming that any alternative explanations will necessarily "deflate to nothingness" is pure prejudice. At least minimally consider the evidence before you write something off so quickly.

For someone to immediately write off the claim that 9/11 was planned, you'd have to answer a question that becomes extremely difficult once you've bought the official story:

Given that a shift from petrodollars to euros as a foundation for international finance will drop the dollar to about 60% of its current value--which will in turn cause interest rates to skyrocket and the stock market to crash--and, given that our presence in Iraq and (probably) Iran and (probably eventually) Venezuela will (at least temporarily) keep this from happening, how would the administration be able to sell the American public on the invasion of these countries if there *hadn't* been a 9/11-type terrorist attack? It clearly would not have been possible.

Re-read that question a few times if you don't fully understand it, because I think that it reaches the core of the entire issue.

Yngwie Einstein wrote:It's all about fear and how it can be used to make a living. Don't matter which side uses it--right wing conspiracy nuts or left wing conspiracy nuts like CB, as long as either continues to promote fear, they will have a source of income or a way to gain attention--which is all they really want anyhow. It's not like anyone really tries to solve problems.

Yeah I have to go ahead and completely agree with that assesment. There is definitely some shady shit that goes on, but I am always skeptical of the peeople trying to expose that shady shit. I am just as skeptical of the people who defend the shady shit. People are people.

Fear is a tool used to keep people divided and in line. It is a tool used to enrich those who capitalize on that fear. Greed is the shadow of fear.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Yngwie Einstein wrote:It's all about fear.

No, it's about knowledge to counter your fear.

Clocker Bob, this is your performance art piece. I am sure you know all about the effects of fear. Fear is what helped W get re-elected and what has prevented Democrats from taking the stands necessary to reverse the direction in this country. Fear sells books. Fear publishes web sites. Fear drives cable news ratings. Fear makes Americans hate Mexicans but not Canadians (well, that and race). Fear drives campaign donations. Fear tells parents they can't raise a family in the city, so they move to the suburbs and let the urban schools and infrastructure fall into disrepair. It's a booming industry.

yngwie einstein wrote:At this point, our country is circling the drain and there's nothing anyone is willing to sacrifice to turn it around.

Rick Reuben wrote: Okay then- assuming the country is circling the drain, let me ask some questions:

Since you claim that all the left wing *and* all the right wing doom prophets and conspiracy theorists are only exploiting the fear, then you must have some 'third wave' strategy for waking people up to the fact that their country is circling the drain- that, or you would prefer that they ignore it, but since you complain about this:

Bob, there is no third wave. Not when people can isolate themselves from interacting with people face to face. You can't wake up people who don't want to know. Americans have been trained by the fear mongering media to fall in line with the whims of corporate-driven mass media. And when the news gets too depressing, Americans block it out.

As long as everyone has an iPod or cell phone or TiVo, they don't need to pay attention as society's core rots. As long as they can buy relatively cheap goods at Target or Wal-mart and find their favorite Clay Aiken song on iTunes, no one is going to lift a finger to stop what's going on.

The right wing loves fear. It keeps them in power. And once the hippies grew up, they opted for fancy cars and mansions instead of changing the world for the better. So forget counting on liberals. Once they get any kind of money or power, they turn conservative.

yngwie wrote:It's not like anyone really tries to solve problems.

Rick Reuben wrote: I'm thinking you're looking for solutions. Got any? You tell us. How do you make people mad about where this country is going without scaring them?

Take away their TVs and cell phones. When all the distractions are removed, our country is fairly capable of solving many problems. Make voting mandatory. Destroy the two-party system. Have a national election day and a national primary day. Make the primary open to all parties and hold a run-off for the top two votegetters, unless one person gets more than 50% of the votes. Term limits for all elected officials at every level. Change the Constitution to make Supreme Court justices eligible to serve one 10-year term and then retire. Eliminate the Electoral College...

I could go on, but the fact is, none of these initiatives will take place in my lifetime because people who think like me don't get placed in positions of influence and the yammering media just writes us off as outside the mainstream or kooks. And the people who make our laws are only interested in preserving their power and privileges.

Rick Reuben wrote: Since you dismiss the motives of all the conspiracy theorists across the whole political spectrum, how about you draw out the path you want Americans to take? Explain to us what we should know, and what we shouldn't know, because it's just too frightening. Can we expect the mainstream politicians to lead us out of the tunnel? Is Obama '08 going to put us all into the life boats?

Sadly, Obama will be like every other Democratic candidate I've supported. He'll lose because the MSM wants to annoint Hilary. But hey, I 'm used to it. I voted for Paul Simon in 1988 and got Dukakis. Voted for Tsongas in 1992 and got Clinton. Bradley in 2000 and got Gore. Wesley Clark in 2004 and got a pine board. Straight shooters can't win when the media doesn't do the job it was intended to do. Corporate news media cares more about the bottom line and preserving the access to government they currently enjoy. Hey look, there's a picture of Paris Hilton crying!

All you need to know can be found in a book of fiction written in 1935. Read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here." When people see that the worst things can happen to anyone in the name of fear, you'll understand where I am coming from with this rant.

Rick Reuben wrote:Critics should have answers.

And there should be a pie in everyone's home. I never claimed to be a critic. I was just pointing out what seems to be so painfully obvious.

Rick Reuben wrote: I know you'll either duck this or fire back some more ad hominem bullshit, but I did have fun putting you on the spot.

Hope you enjoyed my ad hominem bullshit -- served up steamy.

Black Bart wrote:Where are all the white women at?

NerblyBear,\

I have spent more time than most skeptics-of-the-skeptics looking at the technical arguments trotted out by the Jones camp and found nothing but bad science. You just, apparently, weren't following along here when that happened.

I had some very long discussions on this very board with the late Clocker Bob on the physics of the collapse. I've read both sides, and reconstructed their arguments about rate of collapse, and found the Jone's side seriously lacking. If nothing else, the the rate of fall observed is exactly what is expected from the standard theory (planes not inside explosives), and the ball is waaaay in the other court to explain away.

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.)

(By the way, 40 peer reviewed papers for an older faculty member isn't terribly surprising. And at least one of those papers is Mormon inspired nonsense.)

Building 7 collapsed because on the side of the building *not shown* in the gee-whiz videos shown by the Jones camp there was significant and growing damage.

As for the petro-dollars argument...so what? Osama had tons of motive to pull this off, but somehow you don't find that compelling evidence that he did it. Again, arguments from motive alone just don't mean that much.

You're the person who believes that the Bush administration didn't have Iraq and Afghanistan on its radar before 9/11.

I don't recall saying that. "Regime change" in Iraq was certainly in the neo-con playbook well before 9/11. Not so sure about Afghanistan, but perhaps.

But nothing that happened on 9/11 would suggest reversing those ideas.

(Except, perhaps, a tactical argument that the USA doesn't have enough power to do all of these things, and fight Al Qaeda worldwide, at once. But I don't think that's what you have in mind here.)