Lining up experts and doing a head count is a poor way to settle issues like this...but if that is the measure the standard theory wins anyway.

Until the 9/11 truthers can provide a counter-theory that is even remotely plausible, there is no alternative to the standard theory one can even consider.

To date the 9/11 truthers seem to mostly congregate in the vicinity of some kind of "controlled demolition" theory.

I'd like to give that theory a fair hearing. It's time for the 9/11 truthers to answer as many questions as they've asked.

About how many thermite charges were required to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7?

For each charge, what were the steps required to install them for later use?

How long did it take to install them, and how was this done without being noticed?

How were they triggered, keeping in mind the split second multiple delays that would be required to fit the "9/11 Truth" description of the event?

I'm not looking for slam-dunk proof here. Just a plausible alternate theory that gets close to the level of detail the standard theory offers.

You're missing the point.

I'm not asking for evidence that the alternate theory is what actually happened.

I'm asking for *much less* than that.

I'm asking for an account with a little detail that is even remotely conceivably possible in principle.

I'm not asking for the proof. I'm just asking for a plausible hypothesis that is even worth exploring.

Silly boy, I *am* calm.

Now, give me a scenario that shows as a practical matter that what you say happened (controlled demolition) is even remotely plausible. Not proof. Just a reasonable hypothesis with some details like number of charges, what it takes to install them, how they might have been installed without being noticed, and how they might have been triggered with the needed split second delays.

If you can't that's OK. You are not alone. I've seen no such detailed hypothesis from *any* "9/11 truther."

And if a theory isn't possible in principle, there is no need to even ask if it happened in fact.

The burden of hypothesis is yours....

The burden of hypothesis is on all people proposing that they have any clue what actually happened. It is fallacious to assume that because B is not justified that A is correct. Obviously something happened, but it could be A, B, C, D, E, whatever whatever. Also, I'd say that traditional explanation of what happened on 9/11 is typically more dogmatic than alternative theories because the reason they believe is the very fact that it is mainstream and then they wait for to be disproved. That fallacy is a perfect blanket for people to hide under mainstream thought. Look at how often its used to as an argument for religious ideas.

I do believe that because there is a fair amount of evidence for terrorist involvement in 911, I believe that they were likely to be involved. But watching the loads of evidence showing that the building collapses did not happen purely due to airplane crash is convincing that the traditional story is insufficient. But how the fuck am I supposed to know what?

I think it's silly how people are either like "poor americans got attackt by terrorisms, evil" or "al queda is innocent! the government wants oil!".

I'm a big believer that most events in the world are known they are going to happen by most of the world elites. The news is known before it will air. The fashions that will be popular next year are known right now. The wars that will break out in the next decade are being decided by them right now. It benefited American elites for the towers to fall, and it benefited "terrorists" because now we're on their soil and they're ruining our shit and we destroyed a regime in Iraq that THEY opposed. It's win/win for everyone involved, except the ones in the buildings (obviously).

galanter wrote:Now, give me a scenario that shows as a practical matter that what you say happened (controlled demolition) is even remotely plausible. Not proof. Just a reasonable hypothesis with some details like number of charges, what it takes to install them, how they might have been installed without being noticed, and how they might have been triggered with the needed split second delays.

Ummm...isn't "the government did it" the sort of hypothesis that would cover all these details you're interested in? Despite the fact that they are terribly incompetent, they do have a large number of resources at their disposal, and could orchestrate someting of this magnitude, with the help of Al Qaeda members (with knowledge of the link to the US government known or unknown to them).

So,
Number or charges needed would be: however many it would take to bring down each of the towers with a plane lodged in them. I'm sure this number can be given.

What does it take to install them: whatever it takes to install them. They can be installed, so someone could have installed them.

How was their installation not noticed: well, if the government did it, then they covered it up. Resources. Their disposal.

Split second timing: remote detonation, US brainwashed suicide bombers, doing it for their country just as all other suicide bombers do it for some other large, foolish, and nebulous ideal.

I'm sure other, better, more well thought out theories than this have been proposed. I haven't read everything out there, or read all of Rick/Bob's posts, but I know there's an assload of theories.

What you're asking for is the proof though, the outcome of the testing of these theories. Which can't be gotten, since no one is allowed to perform forensic analysis of the evidence, aside from the agency that might be covering up the fact that they did it. You say you're not asking for proof, only for theories, but you have ready access to them if you chose to search them out. So I'm just not really sure what you might be looking for here.

All I would like to see is a reasonable, serious, detailed, independent investigation of the attack. I'm under the impression that this hasn't happened. Not to my satisfaction, anyway...and I'm probably not alone on that.

I'm not saying that lack of a sufficient alternate theory proves the standard theory. I agree that would be fallacious thinking.

But it's a very simple and necessary question. Those who contend that 9/11 was a controlled demolition should be able to explain how it was possible. Not exactly how it was done. Not proof that it was done that way. Just at least one way it could have *possibly* been done.

And not to satisfy *me* specifically. This isn't about me. Just a reasonable account any reasonable person would agree might be possible in principle.

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

Unless someone can explain how a controlled demolition is even vaguely possible in the case of 9/11, it's hard to take it seriously. That doesn't prove the standard theory. But it makes the alternate theory very very weak.

Again, I'm not looking for proof. Just a little detail that makes the hypothetical even vaguely plausible.

galanter wrote:slincire,

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

"The flying spaghetti monster did it etc etc.

No you couldn't. There is no flying Spaghetti monster.
There are however highly secretive military intelligence services that have been known to be involved in the faking of terrorist attacks in other countries (including bombings) for political purposes.
There is no invisible death ray (I've never seen one anyway) but people have demolished buildings before.
Interestingly, steel structured buildings have never fallen down solely due to fire before that day so maybe the official theory is closer to the invisible death ray one.

I'm not saying there's a mass of evidence to prove the demolition alternate theory but you have to be deliberately ignoring the known history of western military intelligence services to suggest it is as implausible as a flying spaghetti monster.

of course you are ignoring that.

so ho, hum

galanter wrote:...

Unless someone can explain how a controlled demolition is even vaguely possible in the case of 9/11, it's hard to take it seriously. That doesn't prove the standard theory. But it makes the alternate theory very very weak.

Again, I'm not looking for proof. Just a little detail that makes the hypothetical even vaguely plausible.

Controlled demolition is a possible explanation in the case of 9/11 because we use explosives to take down large buildings in a controlled manner all the time. It has been done and is well documented as a way of doing this unlike, say, flying planes into them or lighting a few of the floors on fire.

If I was to guess how this was accomplished I would say charges were placed on the central support columns from within the elevator shafts. You could easily reprogram an elevator and ride on top all day doing your work, with few people noticing that it never actually arrived anywhere. Or perhaps teams would work during "scheduled maintenance" or exclusively at night. The buildings were huge, but given enough time almost anything can be accomplished.

All you would really need is a few people working in key positions to provide access or look the other way, and others trained and willing to do the work. I would imagine if anybody did rig up the WTC is was current or former members of our special forces. They are probably the only ones with the degree of training, discipline, secrecy, and moral ambiguity required for the job.

I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, maybe you can help me out there. I'd would like to believe that it couldn't happen like that but the last six years haven't exactly been reassuring.