I am amazed at all the idiocy displayed here. Why don't you guys/gals take a look at what scientists have learned so far about the WTC? The scientists have no motivation to hide any data (their scientific reputation is much more important than someone's political agenda). A very cursory search on Google found these: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?âSimple Analysis J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 128, Issue 1, pp. 2-6 (January 2002) http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?âSimple Analysis" J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 128, Issue 3, pp. 369-370 (March 2002) http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000003000369000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory Fire Safety Journal Volume 38, Issue 6 , October 2003, Pages 501-533 http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=5ab02e4a5b9041f8dfc2a000d2f80416 Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&...s/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf All the conspiracy theorists, can you please study these reports first, before exposing more of you ignorance? It's getting really embarassing.
Real scientists look at the physical structure and then formulate their thesis. These government funded "scientists" had to bend over backwards to derive all that esoteric computer modelled nonsense when they could have use one simple statement: " Use of thermite and controlled demolitions" . How do they explain that these were the only buildings in history to collapse due to fire? Oh wait, they don't. Kind of like how atta's passport was found in the rubble. It's funny how the online references to the passport reports are slowly being eradicated from the net. In fact much of the good well researched information is no longer available online. All for the benefit of the brainwashed sheep.
You're misunderstanding/misinterpreting science, just like the creationists do when they find science disagree with them. Has there been a historical precedent that scientific community is collectively involved in conspiracies/cover-ups? Never. Publications on peer-reviewed scientific journals are NEVER removed online. They form a permenant record of scientific research. Show me a "real" scientific article on one of the peer reviewed journals that supports the claim of conspiracy. If you think that US scientists are tainted, then any foreign journal would be fine - there are plenty of well-reputed scientific journals in France, Germany, UK, Japan, Singapore, or even China or India. Has there been a single scientific article on conspiracy theory that has passed the threshold of peer review? No. Not a single one. Not a friggin single one! Tells you how solid the case is for conspiracy. And BTW, "Journal of 9/11 Studies" or some such thing does not count as a scientific journal. Its sole purpose is to publish conspiracy theories, and it publishes them with no serious critical review.
leave your ego at the door - there's no need to go generalizing about the intelligence of everyone who questions the official story. did you read my post a page or two back re motive and the potential for a non-act to constitute complicity? what's your take on that it's a simple idea, it doesn't prove anything, but i think the existence of motive and the fact that the administration ignored so much information and governmental alarm are a compelling logical combination
Never ascribe to malintent what can perfectly be explained by stupidity. Bush is stupid and lazy. He was on vacation and ignored all the warnings. Not on purpose for some strategic consideration, but from sheer stupidity. The fact that he benefited immensely from the event only proves the stupidity of the people who voted for him. His reaction on 9/11 was that of a deer caught in the headlight - I cannot understand why some highly intelectual people considered his handling of 9/11 to be good.
Lol, sounds exactly like an ID theory to me. Now I know why conspiracy theories are so prevailent in this country.
does the existence of motive affect the assumption of stupidity? how much explicit motive is capable of outweighing a stupidity defense? no amount?
lol i don't see the analogy. to me, it seems like we have both motive and cause. i guess the cause side is highly open to debate, but it seems like there's definitely at least *some* degree of causation thus negligence. very complex to establish for sure though as a non-act - which is why the president's commission with all its conflicts of interest did us no favors by limiting the scope of the investigation. regular citizens are hardly in the position to prove or disprove cause. we only know a highly sanitized sliver of what really happened behind the scenes hard to say, it makes me want to research precedents of legal causality for cut and dry comparisons to the basic facts we do have it's very frustrating to have a mountain of motive and largely unprovable cause in the public domain
"You can't handle the truth" is the only thing that comes to mind when dealing with the CT'ers. They want a boogie man, or a group of boogie men to pin it on. Sorry boys and girls, it ain't that simple. You can't handle the truth of a government so inept, yet so arrogant. The complete indifference of our leaders leaves you dumbfounded. You simply cannot digest that our glorious government is so corrupt, at so many levels, that there is in fact, no solution to be found. If 2, or 20, or 200 are bad seeds, well then, we just kick them to the curb and move on. BUT, what happens when the whole crowd, top to bottom, is the problem? What then? Your simple fuckin' minds just can't conceive of just how fucked we are. You dopes actually think this is fixable. It ain't! The die is cast kiddies, and all "we the people" can do now, is observe.