Also, Mafialligator - "I know the government is dishonest and corrupt"

ok then...so what are you going to do about it?

The building were built basically the same. They seam to have had the same design flaw, which caused them to collapse in the same manner.

@ Darwyn
"There are people like me who haven't fallen for ALL of the nonsense." - Yes, sometimes some conspiracy theorists like you only fall for a limited amount of nonsense.

"What did you see at 10:05am and again at 10:28am? I saw two identical controlled demos...so did a lot of people, including news casters who reported. How long did it take for the experts to convince you otherwise? I'm just wondering..."
I didn't need convincing. As soon as I saw the towers fall I thought "Wow, those buildings collapsed because airplanes flew into them and then they were on fire for some time, as evidenced by the massive amounts of smoke." This really isn't such a far fetched conclusion. A severe fire in a skyscraper can actually cause structural damage that could cause a collapse. And this is in a building that already had suffered structural damage from a physical impact.

"So with one hole punched in the official story, do you still cling to it?" - What hole? You haven't created a hole in the official story. Fire can cause structural damage to buildings. Structural damage --> Collapse. I don't see how you think you've disproven anything. Yes I know, fires aren't uniform. This argument however is somewhat misleading. Fires are still bound by the laws of physics, to those who actually study the relevant chemistry and physics, its really not hard at all to predict what fire will do, given enough information. Secondly it's not actually the presence of visible ionized gas that causes structural damage, it's heat radiated from a fire that damages metal, and regardless of how "chaotic" fire is, heat radiation is uniform in all directions. So there goes your silly "fire couldn't have caused the buildings to collapse" canard. What else you got?

(Oh and I know you think the collapses looked like controlled demolitions. To the untrained eye whales look like large fish. In this case the untrained eye is wrong. Just because you think something superficially resembles something else, doesn't mean they're the same thing. Isn't there a logical fallacy, like, concluding that similar results must necessarily have similar causes?)

"Also, Mafialligator - "I know the government is dishonest and corrupt"
ok then...so what are you going to do about it?" - I do what I can to expose injustice and hypocrisy from the government where I see it. I vote accordingly, and give my support to organizations that I feel are tacking important issues that the government is not handling adequately or is intentionally hindering.

@Darwyn - i'm interested in people's antenna. My wife often watches news reports of kidnappings, murders etc and senses that something isn't right. She mentions to me on a number of occasions that "so and so did it" (usually the husband, parent etc) and then later on (sometimes years later) the husband / parent is convicted and she says "I told you at the time etc etc.

On the face of it my wife has an excellent record (if anyone wants to test this look out for news coverage of a british couple in outh africa - the newlywed wife was killed - my wife suspects the husband)

However, does she really have a sixth sense? It is well known that a lot of murders are committed by someone known to the victim so the number of suspects is generally quite small and what if the style of reporting is affected by something the reporter knows/ suspects and can't report openly?

Whilst my wife has a great record, she still believes the royal family bumped of Diana.

@Invictus - "The only conspiracy theory I really believe is that the United States entered the First World War because American bankers had invested too much money in an Entente victory to allow Germany to win."

Now there really is a wacky theory. Are you REALLY saying that the Central Powers would have won the First World War unless the USA had interevened?

Prior to the arrival of US forces, the effects of Britain's naval blockade of Germany was starting to have such a profound effect on Germany's economy. German industrial output in 1917 was only 53% of what it had been in 1913, and it was already abundantly clear that, unless the Central Powers could somehow force the allies to surrender before the end of 1917, an allied victory was almost guaranteed.

Sure, the arrival of fresh troops and supplies from the US was very welcome. But to suggest that we couldn't have done it without you is highly misleading.


@ Darwyn - just to get one thing absolutely clear, are you claiming that the World Trade Center [sic] was NOT hit by hijacked aircraft? Or are you claiming that the aircraft strikes were real, but that they alone would not have caused the towers to collapse?

It's an important distinction and I'm not sure your posts make clear which version of the conspiracy theory you subscribe to.

@Mafialligator - "I didn't need convincing. As soon as I saw the towers fall I thought "Wow, those buildings collapsed because airplanes flew into them and then they were on fire for some time, as evidenced by the massive amounts of smoke." This really isn't such a far fetched conclusion. "

The point here is that to conclude a controlled demo is not far fetched either.

"A severe fire in a skyscraper can actually cause structural damage that could cause a collapse."

Well, that is indeed a strange assumption, given that it has never happened before or since. In fact, I've seen much larger and more intense fires burn for far longer in buildings that have never caused a collapse. This one just happened: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101115/ap_on_re_as/as_china_fire_5 and there are plenty of other examples like this. Take a look through those pics...see that fire burn?

"And this is in a building that already had suffered structural damage from a physical impact."

Ok, here's the thing...the structural damage was not uniform to either building. Yet all three fell as if there was perfectly uniform damage done...ie a controlled demo. Where is it explained that unpredictable variables can cause identical results? Let alone three times in one day? A successful controlled demo is calculated...it has to be precise. Why do you think that is Mafialligator? Perhaps because if it *wasn't* precise the building would not fall to its footprint?

@Maniac - "i'm interested in people's antenna. My wife often watches news reports of kidnappings, murders etc and senses that something isn't right."

That is good to hear. I think you should listen to your wife more often.

"Whilst my wife has a great record, she still believes the royal family bumped of Diana."

So what's the implication here?

@Jamiet99uk - "are you claiming that the World Trade Center [sic] was NOT hit by hijacked aircraft? Or are you claiming that the aircraft strikes were real, but that they alone would not have caused the towers to collapse?"

I'm arguing that unpredictable and different variables cannot produce identical results.

"It's an important distinction and I'm not sure your posts make clear which version of the conspiracy theory you subscribe to."

That doesn't matter one bit. The only thing I subscribe to at this point is that the official story is full of shit. That is all that matters. It is also the easy part. The hard part is recognizing the implication of a government that has lied about this. That is why you feel the need to label me, or anyone, a conspiracy theorist. It's much easier to call me a whack job than to deal with the implications.

Here's another point I'd like to mention...in contrast to the example I presented above (and many others just like it), we actually see very little fire in WTC's 1 and 2. What we see really is just a lot of smoke. Unlike the example, we cannot actually see a raging inferno.

So what evidence do we actually have that there existed a "raging" inferno?

There is none. There is however, evidence that there wasn't one. A woman can be seen standing in the impact hole and firefighters that have actually made it to the core of the impact had radioed down to command indicated only "small pockets of fire" among others.

Do you see how you've been mislead?

They have used the fact that it collapsed as indication of there being a raging inferno rather than what is logical...that there must exist a raging inferno first. They've put the cart before the horse.

Again, there is no evidence that there actually was a raging inferno but there *is* evidence that there wasn't.

Proof, please. You made a couple claims, but offer no proof that this is true.

Show me the proof of your wild claims. Show me the woman near the impact holes, and show me where the firefighters radioed down.

And whatever you link had better come from a trustworthy source... I'm not going to buy a link to ConspiracyFuckwitsUnited.com

@Darwyn:

ME: "are you claiming that the World Trade Center [sic] was NOT hit by hijacked aircraft? Or are you claiming that the aircraft strikes were real, but that they alone would not have caused the towers to collapse?"

YOU "I'm arguing that unpredictable and different variables cannot produce identical results."

- That's a foolish thing to argue. Your use of the word "cannot" implies far too much certainly on your part. Such certainty is not justified.

It is perfectly possible for unpredictable and different variables to produce similar results. This may happen through nothing more than sheer coincidence - but it is a fact that unlikely coincidences occur every day. Saying something is "unlikely" and saying something "cannot happen" are very different statements.

Secondly, regarding the collapse of the two main WTC towers, a lot of the key "variables" were fairly similar, to be honest:

- Both towers were of almost identical design and were of the same age
- Each tower was hit by an aircraft of the same type - a Boeing 767
- Both aircraft were carrying similar amounts of fuel


ME: "It's an important distinction and I'm not sure your posts make clear which version of the conspiracy theory you subscribe to."

YOU: "That doesn't matter one bit. The only thing I subscribe to at this point is that the official story is full of shit. That is all that matters. It is also the easy part. The hard part is recognizing the implication of a government that has lied about this. That is why you feel the need to label me, or anyone, a conspiracy theorist. It's much easier to call me a whack job than to deal with the implications."

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you here. It is very important to establish what you believe did happen. In this thread, most of the claims you have attempted to advance (for example, your claim that the black smoke suggested a low-oxggen, low-heat fire) have been thoroughly shot down. I therefore want to know which elements of the official account you DO accept as fact. This is very important, and I am challenging you to state whether or not you believe that the WTC was actually hit by two aircraft, or not. If you claimed that the WTC was NOT hit by two Boeing 767 aircraft on 11th September 2001, this would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are a whackjob, since there were literally thousands of witnesses to this happening, plus a huge weight of other supporting data.

So I feel you should answer this point.

Fair enough...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2b/fig-2-15.jpe
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

"It is very important to establish what you believe did happen."

No it is not. But if it makes you feel better, I believe two planes hit the towers.

"Your use of the word "cannot" implies far too much certainly on your part. Such certainty is not justified. "

Fine you are right...I withdraw the word cannot and I will replace it with astronomically unlikely.

"It is perfectly possible for unpredictable and different variables to produce similar results."

If that were true, why bother with controlled demolitions of old, abandon buildings?

"most of the claims you have attempted to advance (for example, your claim that the black smoke suggested a low-oxggen, low-heat fire) have been thoroughly shot down."

lol...I merely said that black smoke is indicative of a oxygen starved fire. This is true. How was that shot down?

Sorry, Darwyn, but to reference Jack_Klein, I think "www.whatreallyhappened.com" might as well be called "www.ConspiracyFuckwitsUnited.com".

If you're going to offer websites like that as reliable evidence, you have no credibility in my eyes.

I'm out.

@ Darwyn:

ME: "It is perfectly possible for unpredictable and different variables to produce similar results."

YOU: "If that were true, why bother with controlled demolitions of old, abandon buildings?"

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. We demolish old buildings when they are no longer useful, or when they become structurally unsound and therefore unsafe. We demolish them in a controlled way to make sure the demolition does not endanger nearby people or other adjacent buildings. I don't see your point.

You didn't see this one then, did you?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

Jamie, you are demonstrating exactly the intellectual laziness I'm talking about. You care not to argue...you care to dismiss anything that you don't agree with.

If you'd like to address the argument, feel free...otherwise, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. And don't come back to try get in your last word. If you are out, you are out...so go fuck off.

@ Darwyn: "I merely said that black smoke is indicative of a oxygen starved fire. This is true. How was that shot down?"

You also implied that a low-oxygen fire would be low in temperature. Draugnar pointed out that this was not a sound claim, since the contents of the building were such that the chemicals burning in the fire would produce an abundance of black smoke.

So you aren't out? *rolls eyes*

"We demolish them in a controlled way to make sure the demolition does not endanger nearby people or other adjacent buildings."

exactly. because demolishing them in an uncontrolled manner (fire) might cause unpredictable and different results.

"You also implied that a low-oxygen fire would be low in temperature."

That is the logical conclusion, yes. Draugner pointed out an alternative explanation for the black smoke and I dont disagree.

@ Darwyn: "go fuck off"

Where did that come from? There's no need for you to swear at me. If you're going to behave as childishly as that, I'm definitely out.

Jamie,

Where is the evidence of a raging inferno? We can both agree that we do not see one, correct?

@ Darwyn: "exactly. because demolishing them in an uncontrolled manner (fire) might cause unpredictable and different results."

What does that have to do with September 11?

The WTC wasn't an 'old, abandoned building' being prepared for demolition.

"If you're going to behave as childishly as that"

I don't respond well to childish behavior...saying that you've dismissed my argument without looking at anything is childish. Don't be childish and I wont tell you to fuck off.

"What does that have to do with September 11?"

Because what we saw looked *exactly* like a controlled demo.

"Where is the evidence of a raging inferno?"

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm

Looks like a pretty intense fire to me, mate.

@ Darwyn: "I don't respond well to childish behavior...saying that you've dismissed my argument without looking at anything is childish. Don't be childish and I wont tell you to fuck off."

Where did I say that I had "dismissed" your argument?

That's 90% smoke.

Unlike this which *didn't* collapse...

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,27404,27601&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=windsor+building+fire&cp=18&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=NVrhTN_QKMXPnAfNodWeDw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QsAQwAQ&biw=1093&bih=828

"Where did I say that I had "dismissed" your argument? "

Here...
"If you're going to offer websites like that as reliable evidence, you have no credibility in my eyes."