Letters to the Editor
-
We need more science training
Instead of 4 years of physical education, we need to give kids 4 years of scientific training. Science education focuses on helping people see what is there, not what they want to be there. I'm not going to pretend that scientists are perfect and non-biased - they are human beings, after all - but scientists learn to question their belief systems in order to draw out what is probably true and what may not be. Unfortuneatly, when somebody who is willing to doubt themselves comes across somebody who isn't, the doubter tends to be perceived as weak and indecisive. If more people recognized that a willingness to doubt is a strength, not a weakness, the world would be a much better place, imo.
-
@ CMN "Ours is not a government with the skill and ability to pull such a thing off."
"To me, those theories are implausible and absurd. Ours is not a government with the skill and ability to pull such a thing off."
So the United States, the country that developed nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, that beat the Russians, landed on the moon, invented the light bulb, et al, could not have managed a Project Northwoods II. But... a guy in a cave, with the help of 19 stripper loving Islamists, most of whom could not fly a plane, could take down NORAD and blow up WTC 1, 2, 7 and the Pentagon.
Tell me what you believe, but don't tell me that the idea that elements within your government were not capable of doing this, but Bin Laden was.
-
A matter of perspective
The microscopic examination of murky digital photos shows the problems with most conspiracy theories, the fact that they are way too close to the stubject. Take a step back and things start to look different.
The collapse of the towers was of a type never before seen? Yep. I can remember no building that has ever received such an insult, a wack that smashed part of the outside structure followed by a blast of burning jet fuel. What would have been remarkable would have been if it didn't collapse.
Nothing hit WTC 7? Actually, it was hit by one of the towers as it collapsed, then burned unrestrained for hours. Again, a type of trauma unprecedented. And so on.
Last year I went to Dallas and for the first time actually saw the site of the Kennedy Assassination. A walk through Dealey Plaza is an admirable antidote for nearly a half-century of theories. It is shockingly small. The famous grassy knoll is about the size of 2 tennis courts. I had heard that Oswald was a poor shot and the gun wasn't very good. Then I looked through the windows of the Book Depository and saw how short the actual distance is. Oswald could have hit JFK with a coconut, much less a rifle. All it takes is a step back.
-
dgholstein
Conspiracy theories? As has been posted in at least one response in this thread, one can prove mathematically, from an estimate of the number of people required to actually carry out such a thing, that a 9/11 conspiracy would be impossible to carry out.
You are familiar with every conspiracy theory there is with regard to 9/11/2001?
If not then how can you claim to be able to mathematically analyze every such theory?
To repeat what one poster has already stated:
THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE EVENTS OF 9/11/2001 *IS* *A* *CONSPIRACY* *THEORY*
Can you hear me?
Am I talking loud enough?
Probably not..
-
Aycharaych -- No, I just addressed one point, that's all
I chose to address the (readily available) scientific explanation for the twin towers' collapse, and the mindset of those who reject that explanation in favor of conspiracies.
You are free to believe what you wish, but don't discount my point because it didn't talk about the rest of 9/11 to your satisfaction. That's not a legitimate argument.
-
bsloane
Pluck the low hanging fruit, eh?
Do you have the courage to state your own opinion?
To wit: Do you believe the official version of events is the truth?
-
@ People love myths/"reality"
Yes they do, you too apparently. Please spare me the fact of your degree, it means nothing to me. Argument from authority - a logical fallacy.
If a degree meant anything Prof. Jones, who has done real experiments, would be the final word would he not?
As for your "mathematical proof" based on "estimates" (whose estimates, to do what exactly?) of the number of people involved... The Manhattan Project was a giant secret "conspiracy" to build a nuclear weapon. It lasted for years, without a single headline in the NYT! People, especially the true believer types, can keep their mouths shut. E. Howard Hunt kept his mouth shut about JFK right up to the end when he made a death bed confession: http://tinyurl.com/2shuz5
You are focusing on a single problem and ignoring the vast mass of contradictory evidence. Math will only get you so far in the real world; I did the math and amazingly Achilles will never catch the tortoise! Zeno rules!
If you want to do some math, check out the temperature at which steel melts, then the temperature at which aviation fuel burns. Then explain to me how the molten pools of metal found at all 3 sites, got there.
Having said this, yes, the number of people required to pull this off would be large, but perhaps not as large as you think, perhaps 100 or 200 people, and yes, it is one of the largest problems with any alternative theory to the official one.
-
@ a matter of perspective
"The microscopic examination of murky digital photos shows the problems with most conspiracy theories, the fact that they are way too close to the stubject."
Some of the images are of excellent quality. But as many have said, there is more evidence than photographs and videos. If you want to "microscopically" examine something, look at the evidence found by Prof. Stephen Jones. There were iron micro-spheres found in the rubble. Nothing in those buildings or the planes could even approach the melting point of iron. Where did that extreme heat come from?
"The collapse of the towers was of a type never before seen? Yep. I can remember no building that has ever received such an insult, a wack that smashed part of the outside structure followed by a blast of burning jet fuel. What would have been remarkable would have been if it didn't collapse."
The twin towers were designed to be hit by airplanes, in fact they were designed to withstand multiple impacts. The wack (sic) of which you speak did take out some of the outer columns, which meant nothing since these were not main supports of the buildings, the main supports were the 47 massive interior columns which were largely undamaged. There were other buildings that sustained "wacks" but did not fall such as the one in Madrid. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
"Nothing hit WTC 7? Actually, it was hit by one of the towers as it collapsed, then burned unrestrained for hours. Again, a type of trauma unprecedented. And so on."
Nothing did hit WTC 7. WTC 7 was a 53 story building that would have been the tallest structure in 33 states. Building 7 was a block away! And it did not burn "unrestrained" the fires were small and isolated. The building itself was modified and hardened as it was supposed to be used as the command center for NYC in the event of an emergency. And if something did hit WTC 7, how did that happen since the towers fell into their own footprint?
7 years later NIST still has not published it's "theory" about what caused the collapse of building 7, in fact, despite your facile attempts at an explanation, there is none. If you read the 911 Commission Report you will notice that WTC 7 is not mentioned at all, let alone explained.
And finally you forgot to say, "nut jobs" "troofers" and "tinfoil hats".