Kenneson
Nice links
JamesThomas
Thing is James, is he has a hypothesis, as you know.
And it has flaws in it - the lack of knowledge about the temperatures that could be reached in such conditions, the extremely large quantity of explosive his hypothesis requires (1 ton of explosive he claims could do the damage to bring them down; how much more would be required for the reaction to still be going weeks later?!), the unsupported nature of some of his claims.
What points do you feel remain after the evidence that's been posted?
And even WITH those, he doesn't have proof; it is only a hypothesis. Hypothesis are by definiton unproven, so just as you can't disprove god, some unproven points cannot be disproved; the lack of evidence to prove a claim is false when that claim has no evidence itself means nothing.
My point over the caption is this is supposedly a scientific paper. There are not 2 point something H atoms to an O atom in water. The building DID damage other buildings and in a scientific paper amplying something didn't hit other things when it did is sloppy or worse. It's no place for journalistic verve.
And the quote of Sarah Atlas is a quote, I realise; here it is again
She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences , summer 2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
Check the quote marks; she said 'Nobody's going to be alive.' Her words are being reported on, and are themselves surrounded by the quote from the article her words were in. She never said a thing about molten steel, it's the writer of the article having a bit of purple prose.
Think about the balance of probabilities;
- Al-Q terrorists planned, trained and were in the planes that hit the WTC (Proven, by evidence and the admission of high-ups in the organisation that planned it).
- The fire in the building was sufficiently strong to weaken the metal frame. These broke, and in a kind of domino effect once the rpocess started in an environment with weakend beams, would propogate. When a floor collapsed, it caused another domino effect, this time vertically. (The science and the evidence backing this up (down to frame-by frame analysis where you can see the described process happening) leave me in no doubt.
- It got really hot in the rubble and stuff may even have melted but was easily hot enough (like an open fire) to make metal glow red.
Or;
- The govenment or some massively powerful organisation planted demolition charges in three busy office buildings without leaving any evidence.
- Terrorists were influenced into mounting the attack, or set-up in remote control planes, or brain-washed and programmed. Additionally the heads of the organsiation claimed the attack as their own.
- The demolition was deliberately triggered - amazingly enough, even with the massive damage to the buildings, the symetry of the explosions required to make if fall like it did were not affected.
- They packed in enough extra reactant to keep it burning weeks later - again, all without being noticed or leaving traces.
- No one has talked, and despite the large number of people with access to the site and the manifestly easy ways evidence could be gathered, there is no hard evidence of this.
I mean, come on...
It is said that the FBI confiscated these private videos within minutes of the incident. Every other time in history bureaucracy is excruciatingly slow.
That's streaching it a bit. Something happens (in a city street, say an assault), even local police will have local CCTV videos ASAP. And using phrases like 'It is said' - yeah, by whom?
I can assure you it is as easy to find utterly convincing evidence the plane hit the Pentagon as it is to find crack-pot theories. As well as commonsense (so where is it then?) that leads to such theories having the US government and hundred of its employees planning and executing an operation which involved slaughtering the passengers and crew after spiriting the plane away without anyone saying anything. Do you really think your fellow man is that evil? I can assure you even if nothing else would motivate someone, the prospect of eternal fame and wealth for anyone blowing the whistle would. Unless you believe that 'they' are so powerful such an attempt would fail or be suppresed by apparently free and critical news organisations?
Oh, and they planted DNA material..? I agree with SixofNine; if you consider the fact;
- there are HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses who SAW a passenger jet fly low over a crowded streach of interstate immediately before hitting the Pentagon
- the lights in the car-lot were clipped exactly like a big jet would
- the interior column damage matches the size of the plane they said did it
- claims about no wreckage are false (there is as much wreckage as you'd expect including engine cores deep in the building, but not a lot of aluminum skin or structural members. Having seen a F4 DISAPPEAR when it was flown into a nuclear containment vessel;
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg
... the disintegration of such parts is entirely consistent with the claimed impact. Note the cute way the wingtips are not destroyed, but are merely cleanly sliced-off such is the destructive power of the impact.
- claims windows that 'should' have broken but didn't are clueless - the plane hit newly strengthened portion of the Pentagon, which had blast-proof windows which actully worked very well).
Show me a website claiming no plane hit the Pentagon, and I will show you it's selective use of quotes, photographs and data, and it's suspiciously convenient ignorance and avoidance of obvious flaws in their claims. I promise you. But if I can find the proof that claims no passenger hit the Pentagon are false or risable, you guys can too.
It is not a few good points by a possibly-dodgy professor, or prophets of truth in the internet wasteland. It is the increasingly ludicrous leaps of faith and either improbabilities or impossibilities one has to put your faith (I choose those words) in.
Mulan
A CCT camera will, unlike a video camera, normally take less than the 60 scans a second (30 frames). Even at this frame rate a fast moving object will appear to jump from one position to another when replayed slowly.
It's just like a movie camera; film moves into place, shutter opens, shutter closes, film advances one frame, repeat. An object is only recorded on a frame of film or video if it's in front of the lens when the shutter is open.
Obviously video cameras don't have shutters like film cameras do but it still works in a similar fashion to you taking 30 photos in one second and stringing them together to make a second of film; there are points in the second when the 'eye' of the camera is not recording what is in front of the lens.
A CCTV camera might only have a frame rate of 10 a second or lower, so what you see is EXACTLY what you would see if a fast jet ploughed into a building like that. And don't you think the government could do better fakes than Steven Spielburg or George Lucas?
~
Think of JFK's shooting. Think of the now beautifully detailed proofs of the single gun-man in the book despository created by people who digitised the entire sequence of evens in 3D on a computer, and showed how some seemingly convincing claims (which had no hard evidence) were utter bunk. Think of how people love and cling to such clever, iconoclastic yet unproven theories. See the pattern, and in the words of NWA, don't don't don't, don't believe the hype.
Just because it is the commonly accepted story doesn't mean it IS hype.
Just because it is 'on the edge' pseudo-gnostic blah, doesn't mean it is NOT hype.
I'd say it's far more simple; the President is apparently a partially competent gibbon and is run or part of a long entrenched cliche of neo-liberals who intended to go into Iraq anyway. They might have looked the other way from 9/11 in some form or other, there may have been some form of 'who will rid me of this accursed priest?', they definately were caught with their pants down as far as prevention goes, they certainly benefited from the attack in terms of the strength it gave their position and the massive boost the war gave to the defence industry - almost $100 billion a year extra... and of course some of the defence industry are very hand in glove with the neo-cons. How cosy. And men and women are dying because of a financially and strategically motivated war carried out on false pretexts.
I suppose it is a conspiracy theory. And most of it - far far far far more than the planes didn't hit/buildings wrere demolished theories - is provable.
Seriously people, isn't that enough SCAREY to be going on with without believing the wild unfounded stuff?
