The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

This is worth a quick view, highlights some of the problems with the exclusive footage as aired on CNN.
CNN Fake Footage: More Proof for the Hard Headed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hwdJTOdEmY

I've often wondered why the truth needs a techno soundtrack.

The author is working off a pre disposed opinion that the footage is faked. It decides where it thinks the camera should be. It doesn't offer any concrete evidence that the camera was at this position. It doesn't take into account any alternative explanation. Increased eluvation of the cameraman, for example, filming from the roof of an OB van. If you look at the photos , and compare them to the footage, only the tips of the follage can be seen in the video from 911, which would be evidence of either the camera is at a higher level than mere ground level, or the camera is tripod mounted, and tilted at an angle. Now seeing as the CNN footage is hand held and I can see no evidence of a tree trunk at any point in the footage, I can happily think of a more logical explanation.

For example, that little gif of the tree like, that morphs into the background. Are you trying to tell me, that that hasn't been played with? That some how the photographer was able to manage to find the exact spot the cameraman was in and take the exact framing, of that exact frame, and perfectly mimic it? Even if the camera had been locked off ona tripod, the position, lens, and zoom noted carefully, it'd be a fancy trick. That photo has been manipulated, end of discussion. The alternative is that the photographer is freaking rain man.

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

TV-Fakery on 9/11 has already been conclusively proven and is only not believed by the most brainwashed of the Truth Movement.

I'm going to stop you here. See you've posted up so much crazy, it's been difficult to get a handle on. Can I ask, before I get into this, you believe, a plane did not hit the south tower? What about the first strike on North Tower? Do you believe no planes hit the world trade centers 1&2 at all?

I just want clarification before you continue.

I should point out to you before you do, You'll be discussing this with someone who's worked with news organisations, including CNN, has a working technical knowledge of the route video enters a news room, as well as visual effects software pacakages, including working on visual effects heavy feature films, in the year 2001, so am completely au fau with what was then cutting edge visual effects software.

miju

Flyingfish wrote:

This is worth a quick view, highlights some of the problems with the exclusive footage as aired on CNN.
CNN Fake Footage: More Proof for the Hard Headed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hwdJTOdEmY

i suspect your either taking the piss / trying to detract from this topic in general OR you wear tin foil hats on a continual basis.

the CNN footage was not exclusive nor was it faked END OF :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

bonkey

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

The Frozen Fireball

As a matter of interest....

Can you establish that these various images / animated gifs are not what has been manipulated?

Is there a reference available to the actual tv footage of the time, that this can be compared against, rather than having to take Killtown's word that these images he "made" are unmodified TV footage converted to animated gif and not still images cooked into animated gifs - using the very techniques that he seems to be complaining about?

I mean...he even cut out any station-identifying logos.

I'm not suggesting that they are faked. Its just that the author you've borrowed them from goes to great length to explain how images can be manipulated to achieve dishnest ends and then manages to show something with no timestamp, no tv-logo, no additional footage before or after, in a format that removes the voiceover....basically anything that would allow us to readily compare it to any copies of the footage of the broadcast it supposedly comes from.

For someone trying to make a case that its faked, one would imagine Killtown would know how to establish that he didn't manipulate the images, but that seems not to be the case.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Second, if you watch closely you can see that the fireball is actually changing (billowing is the term I'd use) from frame to frame.

Is it?

I'm looking at the "streak" heading at about 5o'clock downwards, and it doesn't move at all during the entire shot.

However, given a single image, some free photoshopping software, an animated-gif builder and an afternoon, I could achieve the same effects....and I'm not image-guru.

That this is supposedly the genius work of some dastardly conspirators with beam weapons and the like at their disposal just seems a a bit...well...unlikely. I'd expect something more on the lines of what WETA can produce, not something that I could knock up myself on my notebook in a spare afternoon.

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

Is it?

I think so. I've captured two details from the first and last frames, and scaled the grab from the last frame to - as best as I can judge it (using the size of the building as a reference) - the same framing as the first. Obviously there's a loss of detail in the zoomed out frame, but:



There's a "lobe" of the fireball that increases in size and brightness throughout the clip. I've also restored the original NTSC framerate, which makes it easier to discern movement:

bonkey wrote:

I'm looking at the "streak" heading at about 5o'clock downwards, and it doesn't move at all during the entire shot.

It's very hard to tell because of the loss of resolution as the camera zooms out, but it seems to me that the bottom of that streak (which is a smoke/dust trail from falling debris) is fractionally lower at the end of the shot than at the start: compare it to the roof of the building to the left.

bonkey wrote:

However, given a single image, some free photoshopping software, an animated-gif builder and an afternoon, I could achieve the same effects....and I'm not image-guru.

That this is supposedly the genius work of some dastardly conspirators with beam weapons and the like at their disposal just seems a a bit...well...unlikely. I'd expect something more on the lines of what WETA can produce, not something that I could knock up myself on my notebook in a spare afternoon.

I don't disagree with the principle of your argument, but I'm questioning whether there's any fakery here on either side. I genuinely believe this to be a careful selection and framing of visual evidence to suit a preconceived idea.

Flyingfish

miju wrote:

i suspect your either taking the piss / trying to detract from this topic in general OR you wear tin foil hats on a continual basis.

the CNN footage was not exclusive nor was it faked END OF :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'd ask you to please take a look at the following and indicate your stance:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53359984&postcount=17

oscarBravo

One more post on the "frozen fireball": I've cropped the fireball from each frame of the original animation as posted, and used a cubic rescale to eliminate the zoom from the equation. Obviously this means a loss of detail as the clip progresses, but the scale is accurate:



I've used half-NTSC framerate to make the clip long enough to watch, but fast enough to get a realtime feel. It's clear that the fireball is, indeed, morphing during the clip.

I'm not an expert in video forensics, but I think this pretty thoroughly debunks the "frozen fireball" claim. I'd be curious to hear CB_Brooklyn's thoughts on this, as well as my rebuttal of the "break in the building" claim.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

miju

Flyingfish wrote:

I'd ask you to please take a look at the following and indicate your stance:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53359984&postcount=17

people here know my stance already no need to repeat it :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , back on topic pls

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

One more post on the "frozen fireball": I've cropped the fireball from each frame of the original animation as posted, and used a cubic rescale to eliminate the zoom from the equation. Obviously this means a loss of detail as the clip progresses, but the scale is accurate:

I retract my suggestion that it was all from one frame.

Nice work.

bonkey

In the interest of promoting discussion and debate....

http://www.911debates.com/

Interesting notion. I predict it will be a resounding failure.

Flyingfish

oscarBravo wrote:

One more post on the "frozen fireball": I've cropped the fireball from each frame of the original animation as posted, and used a cubic rescale to eliminate the zoom from the equation. Obviously this means a loss of detail as the clip progresses, but the scale is accurate:



I've used half-NTSC framerate to make the clip long enough to watch, but fast enough to get a realtime feel. It's clear that the fireball is, indeed, morphing during the clip.

I'm not an expert in video forensics, but I think this pretty thoroughly debunks the "frozen fireball" claim. I'd be curious to hear CB_Brooklyn's thoughts on this, as well as my rebuttal of the "break in the building" claim.

Yeah got to say, nice one - good work!

Diogenes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Hundreds if not thousands of people have in edit suites around the world, gone through the footage of the moment flight 175 hundreds of times. I've edited the footage recorded off the live feed on digi beta, without any generation lost. I feel no more need to prove this wrong, as I do that tiny gif of the Zapruder film which "proves" JFK was shot by his driver.

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

In the interest of promoting discussion and debate....

http://www.911debates.com/

Interesting notion. I predict it will be a resounding failure.

Solid idea– does seem a bit light on actual debate though; guess it is new so time will tell. Why out of interest do you think it will fail?

Ciaran500

Flyingfish wrote:

Solid idea– does seem a bit light on actual debate though; guess it is new so time will tell. Why out of interest do you think it will fail?

Stop posting in black, we don't all use the same default white theme.

Nick_oliveri

Ciaran500 wrote:

Stop posting in black, we don't all use the same default white theme.

I agree, please post in default colour.

RE: the frozen fireball gif, nice work oscarbravo. The current point of debate about fake news footage/ CGI or whatever is a timewaster i would consider to be disinformation.

And it contributes to people not taking this thread and subject seriously anymore, goes to show the gullibility of some folks.

oscarBravo

Nick_oliveri wrote:

The current point of debate about fake news footage/ CGI or whatever is a timewaster i would consider to be disinformation.

And it contributes to people not taking this thread and subject seriously anymore, goes to show the gullibility of some folks.

Actually, I disagree.

I spent maybe half an hour of my time, using freely available software (the GIMP, in case anyone's interested) and some simple calculations to clearly demonstrate that something which at first glance seemed intuitively obvious actually wasn't the case at all. I think this illustrates an important principle that's overlooked by many believers in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11: choose the simplest explanation that fits the facts.

The "no-planers" are among the most extreme of the believers (have any of them watched the Naudet brothers' "9/11" documentary? What's their explanation for the fact that the firefighters heard the first plane overhead, looked up and saw the plane hit the building?), but they simply demonstrate the most obvious manifestation of the lack of critical thinking that often characterise such believers.

In this case, I was able to hoist the believers on one of their favourite petards: video evidence. If a pillar of your belief system is "if it looks like x, then it must be x", then clear video evidence can be used to show that it actually doesn't look like x at all. The problem is the refusal to accept other kinds of evidence that is equally valid, such as the overwhelming weight of expert testimony.

I'm still curious to hear CB_Brooklyn's response.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote:

The current point of debate about fake news footage/ CGI or whatever is a timewaster i would consider to be disinformation.

Disinformation?

Why is it every time that a dishonest, stupid, or downright crazy argument gets made in favour of some Conspiracy Theory, it is explained away by "disinformation"?

I mean...the LC guys claimed their stuff was true, then claimed it had deliberate mistakes. Is that disinfo?
Killtown has been a big supporter of theirs from the start, but now he is disinfo, apparently, especially cause DA and he seem to have fallen out.
Fetzer and Jones have fallen out with each other, so whichever you support would suggest the other is disinfo, right? Only gosh...which one could it be!

If you needed a single reason why Conspiracy Theorists don't get taken seriously, thats it right there. They try and explain away stuff they were conned into believing by claiming it to be "disinfo".

After all, the alternate just isn't credible, is it....that these people are just out for fame and/or fortune on the backs of people who will readily believe their carefully crafted deception and who, when faced with the reality that they were gulled need to see it as further proof of a coverup.

Simplify it down, and see what you end up with:

fictional conversation wrote:

The government has lied to you
Gosh? Really?

Yes, really. Here's proof
Wow. I'm convinced. The government has lied to me

Actually, I lied to you. I made that proof up. Look, here's what I did to fool you...
You did lie! You must work for the government. You're living proof that they lie to me.

Yes. You're right. I'm convinced.

Its obviously disinformation. That the guy has been a sycophantic supporter of the LC crew for ages now is only proof that he was trying to ingratiate himself into the consciousness of truth-seekers so that he could strike a crippling blow at just the right time to safeguard the real truth.

Nick_oliveri

Woah there buddy, i was just pointing out that the thread had been derailed with outrageous stuff.

I never got "conned into believing" anything that CB_Brooklyn was pushing.

Bonkey wrote:

After all, the alternate just isn't credible, is it....that these people are just out for fame and/or fortune on the backs of people who will readily believe their carefully crafted deception and who, when faced with the reality that they were gulled need to see it as further proof of a coverup.

Something i have seen on other forums.

I used the word "disinformation", as a nicer way of saying that the CGI argument was complete and utter shíte or even a total lie. I wont use it again :eek:

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Second, if you watch closely you can see that the fireball is actually changing (billowing is the term I'd use) from frame to frame.

So you have no problem examining this fireball so closely that you can see it billowing, yet you can't see anything wrong with explosive photos like these?

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Nothing to see here people, it's clearly just evidence of a collapsing building...

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg

I'm probably wasting my time posting these, but maybe you will be able to explain just how it's possible for the buildings to explode and collapse at the same time?

I think this illustrates an important principle that's overlooked by many believers in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11: choose the simplest explanation that fits the facts.

You seem to forget that it is people like you who believe in a theory/story of the events of that day, not me, so who is the real conspiracy theorist?

According to theorists like yourself, the simplest explanation of WTC 7 is the building was damaged in one corner and there were fires on a few floors. This doesn't explain how the building feel straight down in seconds...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/wtc7-demolitionlg.gif

So basically your theory is that building burned to the ground?

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

So you have no problem examining this fireball so closely that you can see it billowing, yet you can't see anything wrong with explosive photos like these?

Verily, the mind doth boggle. I responded to a claim that a particular video clip showed evidence of TV fakery, and clearly demonstrated that it did no such thing. How did the person who posted the clip respond? By ignoring me completely, and continuing to spam this forum with no evident interest in actually discussing anything. How do you respond? You wave it aside.

Tell me this, tunaman: why, exactly, are you so keen to avoid actually discussing anything on this forum?

tunaman wrote:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Nothing to see here people, it's clearly just evidence of a collapsing building...

It's not evidence of anything, it's a photograph of a collapsing building. You insist that it shows the building exploding, but you refuse point blank, over and over again to actually explain how it shows anything of the kind.

tunaman wrote:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg

I'm probably wasting my time posting these, but maybe you will be able to explain just how it's possible for the buildings to explode and collapse at the same time?

Why would I explain anything of the sort, when you've yet to demonstrate that the buildings exploded?

Don't you understand why I posted the "frozen fireball" rebuttal, and - more importantly - why I spent the better part of an hour preparing the material for it? I was making the point that you can't simply look at a picture and draw a conclusion from it.

In that picture, there's a caption that says: "The red arrow points to pieces of the tower..." - how does the author know they are pieces of the tower? Maybe they're pieces of furniture, or ceiling tiles, or...

The picture is also evidently designed to create the impression that the indicated debris has just been ejected horizontally from the collapse zone as pictured, but the tower is already in an advanced stage of collapse, so it seems likely that the debris had been falling downward and outward for some distance at the time the picture was captured. As for the question, "Why were they ejected with such force?" - the question presupposes that only an explosion could create the required force, but as I've already asked ad nauseam on this thread: how much force do you suppose a 30-storey building exerts on an 80-storey building when it's dropped onto it?

Of course, I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time even discussing this, because - as I mentioned earlier - you're not interested in discussion.

tunaman wrote:

You seem to forget that it is people like you who believe in a theory/story of the events of that day, not me, so who is the real conspiracy theorist?

I'm confused. You don't have a theory as to what happened that day? You haven't theorised that explosives were used to demolish the towers?

What, exactly, do you hope to achieve by posting here?

tunaman wrote:

According to theorists like yourself, the simplest explanation of WTC 7 is the building was damaged in one corner and there were fires on a few floors.

Please point out where I've said this.

tunaman wrote:

So basically your theory is that building burned to the ground?

Please point out what I've said to indicate that I have any theories about WTC7.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

According to theorists like yourself, the simplest explanation of WTC 7 is the building was damaged in one corner and there were fires on a few floors. This doesn't explain how the building feel straight down in seconds...

The only theory that there were fires "on a few floors" is the very one that the official investigation concluded was a completely insufficient best-guess.

In other words - as people like yourself were once-upon-a-time quick to point out - they concluded that they didn't know and could not explain what happened.

They also concluded that because they didn't know and could not explain, they needed to comission an in-depth investigation by the relevant experts.

The interim version of that report already makes clear that it was not a fire on a few floors and goes quite a way to explain both why the collapse was not "a few seconds" like you claim and why it happened the way it did. As it is not a final report, however, it is obviously incomplete in detail.

So basically your theory is that building burned to the ground?

Is this meant rhetorically?

You've just told us what our theory is, but now you rephrase it as a question, so I assume its the latter.

No, my theory is not that the building burned to the ground, no more than it is that there were a fires on a few floors. I can guarantee that these are not the theories of OB, Diogenes, nor anyone else who posts here in support of the expert-based explanation regarding this aspect of the series of events.

I'm amused to note, however, how inaccurately you portray our positions given that its a position you'd presumably have researched in order to be able to comment meaningfully on it. I'm amused because I see that you've posted to the "how to debunk anything" thread which I'm off to read now, and I'm just wondering if you've been taking tips from the list to debunk the official position regarding the collapse of WTC7.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

How do you respond? You wave it aside.

It's got nothing to do with me.

Tell me this, tunaman: why, exactly, are you so keen to avoid actually discussing anything on this forum?

I have no problem discussing interesting topics, but I haven't got the time or inclination to go round and round in circles with some people again.

It's not evidence of anything, it's a photograph of a collapsing building. You insist that it shows the building exploding, but you refuse point blank, over and over again to actually explain how it shows anything of the kind. Why would I explain anything of the sort, when you've yet to demonstrate that the buildings exploded?

Since when is a photo not evidence?

That's right, when it doesn't support the theory you are promoting. :rolleyes:

I see an exploding building, yet you claim it's merely collapsing, without explanation how a collapsing building can possibly explode like that...

"Why were they ejected with such force?" - the question presupposes that only an explosion could create the required force, but as I've already asked ad nauseam on this thread: how much force do you suppose a 30-storey building exerts on an 80-storey building when it's dropped onto it?

You are resorting to speculation and distortion now, as a 30 storey building didn't get dropped onto anything...

You don't have a theory as to what happened that day? You haven't theorised that explosives were used to demolish the towers?

How could anybody in the public know what really happened that day?

Explosives being used is a dose of reality. The problem is I can't say that because I don't know when they were put there, and by who.

I can't prove it, same way you can't prove anything about the official theory.

What, exactly, do you hope to achieve by posting here?

I wanted to find some answers to questions from people who believe in the offficial theory, however I am still without these answers, as my questions are never really answered...

Please point out what I've said to indicate that I have any theories about WTC7.

Your continued defence of the official theory.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

It's got nothing to do with me.

So why did you bring it up? Anyway, it's an open forum, so I'll ask the question directly: do you accept that the "frozen fireball" hypothesis, presented as evidence of TV fakery, is in fact nothing of the sort?

tunaman wrote:

I have no problem discussing interesting topics, but I haven't got the time or inclination to go round and round in circles with some people again.

I call bullshít. You have the time and inclination to post snide remarks and links to pictures you've posted repeatedly before, but when it comes to defending your hypotheses, suddenly you lose interest. Yeah, right.

tunaman wrote:

Since when is a photo not evidence?

That's right, when it doesn't support the theory you are promoting. :rolleyes:

On the contrary, a photo is not evidence when it doesn't clearly demonstrate what you claim it does. For example, CB_Brooklyn posted a video clip that claimed to be evidence of TV fakery. It turned out to be nothing of the sort. CB_Brooklyn conspicuously refuses to comment on this fact.

Your photographs don't clearly illustrate what you claim they do. I've posted a rebuttal to your claim that they do, and you refuse to discuss it.

But please: feel free to prove me wrong. I've explained what's wrong with the photographs you've posted. Now show me the flaws in my reasoning, and point out how the photographs do, in fact, support your hypothesis of an exploding building.

tunaman wrote:

I see an exploding building, yet you claim it's merely collapsing, without explanation how a collapsing building can possibly explode like that...

You haven't demonstrated that it's exploding. Please demonstrate - using facts, research and logic - that a collapsing building couldn't possibly look the way those buildings look in your photographs.

Unless you do so, you're presenting a hypothesis ("the building exploded") and asking me to explain your theory. It doesn't work that way.

tunaman wrote:

You are resorting to speculation and distortion now, as a 30 storey building didn't get dropped onto anything...

OK, since you're prepared to resort to pedantry, will you accept that the equivalent of a 30-storey building fell onto the equivalent of an 80-storey building?

tunaman wrote:

How could anybody in the public know what really happened that day?

I don't know, and you don't know. All either of us can do is make a case for the likelihood of a given hypothesis. The official story makes sense to me, broadly speaking.

tunaman wrote:

Explosives being used is a dose of reality.

For very strange definitions of "reality", maybe. There's quite simply no compelling evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis that explosives were used, and way too many unexplained problems with the idea that they might have been.

When I say "no compelling evidence", I mean no evidence that can't be at least as adequately explained by the official story.

tunaman wrote:

I can't prove it, same way you can't prove anything about the official theory.

No, but we can both use observation and logic to make a case for a given hypothesis. That's what discussion is all about - if you're truly interested in it.

tunaman wrote:

I wanted to find some answers to questions from people who believe in the offficial theory, however I am still without these answers, as my questions are never really answered...

That's because you ask loaded and leading questions, such as asking how the official theory explains how the buildings exploded, while glossing over minor details like actually demonstrating that they did explode.

tunaman wrote:

Your continued defence of the official theory.

It's the best theory to explain the observed facts. It's intellectual laziness to claim not to believe one theory, while not bothering to come up with a plausible alternative.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Your photographs don't clearly illustrate what you claim they do. I've posted a rebuttal to your claim that they do, and you refuse to discuss it.

Is that what you call a rebuttal?

You just resort to wild speculation and claims of foul play by the use of the word ejected. :rolleyes:

But please: feel free to prove me wrong. I've explained what's wrong with the photographs you've posted. Now show me the flaws in my reasoning, and point out how the photographs do, in fact, support your hypothesis of an exploding building. You haven't demonstrated that it's exploding. Please demonstrate - using facts, research and logic - that a collapsing building couldn't possibly look the way those buildings look in your photographs.

There is no reasoning on your part, just speculation...

The only force present in a collapsing building is gravity, which is not (as you know) an even remotely explosive force.

I don't know, and you don't know. All either of us can do is make a case for the likelihood of a given hypothesis. The official story makes sense to me, broadly speaking.

How do you determine what is a likely hypothesis?

Can you be specific when you say broadly speaking?

For very strange definitions of "reality", maybe. There's quite simply no compelling evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis that explosives were used, and way too many unexplained problems with the idea that they might have been.

The fact that 3 massive steel-framed buildings were completely destroyed in a combined time of less than 60 seconds.

That's 267 floors gone in less than 1 minute, with nearly every eyewitness who was in and around the buildings just before they came down, reporting that they heard and felt huge explosions inside the towers.

There are plenty of short compilations of some of those accounts, which have been put together by somebody on the internet. I'm sure you realise that all these interviews were originally recorded with TV cameras, so try not to get so dismissive just because they have now been put together on the internet. :eek:

When I say "no compelling evidence", I mean no evidence that can't be at least as adequately explained by the official story. No, but we can both use observation and logic to make a case for a given hypothesis. That's what discussion is all about - if you're truly interested in it.

The problem is the only way you can try to explain away all the evidence is by resorting to speculation, while ignoring observation and logic.

It's the best theory to explain the observed facts.

No it isn't, as it ignores hundreds of facts, which cannot be explained by the official conspiracy theory...

It's intellectual laziness to claim not to believe one theory, while not bothering to come up with a plausible alternative.

Wrong again, as in reality it's lazy to just believe in the official theory.

I don't know what really happened, so to come up with another theory would mean resorting to wild speculation, which is exactly what you have to do for the official theory to remain true...

Call Me Jimmy

tunaman wrote:

That's 267 floors gone in less than 1 minute, with nearly every eyewitness who was in and around the buildings just before they came down, reporting that they heard and felt huge explosions inside the towers.

Just curious, is it possible that the explosions were not bombs. Anyone know what type of central heating system the building used? If it was gas heating, could the building collapsing not cause containers to explode?

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Is that what you call a rebuttal?

You just resort to wild speculation and claims of foul play by the use of the word ejected. :rolleyes:

...and you just keep repeating words like "explosive" and "exploding" as if sheer repetition is going to make them true. The buildings didn't explode, they fell down.

tunaman wrote:

There is no reasoning on your part, just speculation...

Pot, kettle. You don't even have a hypothesis.

tunaman wrote:

The only force present in a collapsing building is gravity, which is not (as you know) an even remotely explosive force.

So what? The buildings didn't explode.

tunaman wrote:

How do you determine what is a likely hypothesis?

If it's coherent, consistent with observed facts, and doesn't rely on the introduction of external influences not supported by the observed facts, then it's a useful hypothesis.

For example, many people believe that the buildings were brought down by a controlled explosion, but this requires that the buildings be rigged in advance with explosives - something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Therefore, it's an unlikely hypothesis.

tunaman wrote:

The fact that 3 massive steel-framed buildings were completely destroyed in a combined time of less than 60 seconds.

On the contrary, it took several hours for the buildings to be destroyed.

tunaman wrote:

That's 267 floors gone in less than 1 minute, with nearly every eyewitness who was in and around the buildings just before they came down, reporting that they heard and felt huge explosions inside the towers.

I can't bring myself to be surprised at the revelation that a 110-storey building makes a lot of noise while it's collapsing.

tunaman wrote:

There are plenty of short compilations of some of those accounts, which have been put together by somebody on the internet. I'm sure you realise that all these interviews were originally recorded with TV cameras, so try not to get so dismissive just because they have now been put together on the internet. :eek:

I can go one better - I watched the Naudet brothers' 9|11 documentary, which includes footage from inside one tower while the other was collapsing. The noise was incredible - but it didn't sound anything like a controlled demolition.

tunaman wrote:

The problem is the only way you can try to explain away all the evidence is by resorting to speculation, while ignoring observation and logic.

There is no "evidence" to explain away. There's no evidence whatsoever for controlled demolition. None. Zip. Nada. Bupkis.

tunaman wrote:

No it isn't, as it ignores hundreds of facts, which cannot be explained by the official conspiracy theory...

Name five. Bear in mind you've used the word "facts", so I'll be checking.

tunaman wrote:

Wrong again, as in reality it's lazy to just believe in the official theory.

See, that's not even a counter to what I said. There has been a detailed study into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, and one is ongoing into WTC 7. It's not a question of lazily believing them, it's the simple fact that there's no error of science, logic or investigation technique that I can find in those studies.

tunaman wrote:

I don't know what really happened, so to come up with another theory would mean resorting to wild speculation...

Well, that's awfully convenient, isn't it? Basically you have no idea what actually happened, but you're absolutely certain it isn't what the scientists and engineers say happened - not that you can actually point out any flaws in their work.

Captain Chaos

Fact: Each tower fell in less than 10 seconds.

Both towers fell in exactly the same by and large uniform way.

If it were left to gravity and pure natural physics, the bulidings would not have come down so fast or as neatly. And the foundations happened to melt all by themselves.:rolleyes:

You would need uniform detruction of key strong points within the buliding to make them fall in the way they did.

If it were that easy to drop a buliding so nealty they would have just burned the Ballymun towers to the ground, it would have been quicker too.:rolleyes:

Diogenes

Captain Chaos wrote:

Fact: Each tower fell in less than 10 seconds.

Could you prove your first sentence? I mean anything I've seen means the collapse is hidden by the dust cloud so it's impossible to gauge a collapse time.

bonkey

Captain Chaos wrote:

If it were that easy to drop a buliding so nealty they would have just burned the Ballymun towers to the ground, it would have been quicker too.:rolleyes:

Don't you mean they'd have just crashed large airliners into the Ballymun towers, and if they stood up to the impact, the resultant fires would have done the rest of what was necessary to cause catastrophic failure?

That may, indeed, have been quicker.

I'm not entirely sure that the use of large airliners would be considered cost-effective or safe though.

I'd also be surprised to learn that Ballymun towers were constructed similarly to the WTC. Weren't they concrete structures, not predominantly glass and steel?