Symneopology

You say >> “No scientific facts were intended to be introduced, just a pointer to the fact that your claims to have "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11Truth movement have been themselves debunked”

I BEG YOUR PARDON?? ?? The entire proof that Popular Mechanics and 911 Debunked have been themselves debunked, consists of a nitwit on a website who says so. That’s your proof?

Worse, I go to the site you directed Agronomist to see the “physics” evidence,

There I read this >> “What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later? “

Highly scientific this bloke.

Claims – This is the first time a steel framed building collapsed ever,

The response - In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Note the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. … In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Cont,

Claims - Towers fell at free fall speed.

Response - The towers did NOT fall at freefall speeds. You can see from the pictures that debris is falling faster than the building itself. Real engineer/physicists calculated that the time needed for a top floor to collapse was approximately 1/10th of a second, although this time decreased dramatically as the building fell, and greater forces were applied to each floor. http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg

See this conspiracy nut footage of the twin towers falling. In the first minute you see towers 1 and 2 falling, and you can clearly see large chunks of debris falling much faster than the buildings. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok&feature=related

Pictures of the same can be seen here http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Claims - WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

Response - According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Organisations involved in the NIST report: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

I suppose they are all IN on the conspiracy as well?

Here is NIST’s response to many claims made by conspiracy theorists http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

You say >> "Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7. "

Thermate is not an explosive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

see http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm for a full discussion of molten steel hypothesis

I know I said I wouldn't waste any more time on it but Forrest, you normally sound quite reasonable, so this for you.

Consider these two scenarios:

A relgious fanatic terrorist organisation decides to plot one of the biggest acts of terrorism in history on what they think are their biggest enemies. They have a history of attacking military and civilian targets like battleships and embassies.
They realise that to make any kind of impact, they need to do it with multiple people and multiple targets, because all theor previous plots involving only one target have either been stopped or fail to make much impact.
(Multiple targets, multiple cells get through- this is now the satandard mode of operation Al-Qaeda.)

Now, they plot and plan in secret over several years in small groups for the attack that will happen by surprise all at once on one single day.
Other Muslim terrorist organisations that they have links to have hijacked planes before and they know what works and how to do it, this is likely one of the techniques that is taught in the camps in Afghanistan, or previously Libya. Lots of Libyan-sponsored terrorists used to hijack planes.
In one hour they manage to be spectacularly successful because it comes as a complete surprise. Job done. America is seriously butthurt and commences a campaign of war and retribution that engulfs the Muslim world and enables them to call for jihad to anyone who will listen.
In this scenario, the american government acts opportunistically and encourages jingoism so that they can deliver their package of pain to their enemies wherever they are and seriously think they can change the world for the better by hard military action, lack of which by the previous administration they believed caused the problem in the first place.

Unlikely? ....cont'd

Scenario 2:

Elements of the American government/corporate/military (mix and match as you wish) secretly plots to gain for themselves more power and influence, or just want an excuse to start a war and make money.
So they engineer a massive demolition involving the three towers, a missile strike on the pentagon and a crashed jet in Pennsylvania.
This they do in total secrecy, without anyone coming forward, anonymously leaking details or anything like that. They lay hundreds to thousands of explosives charges for the demolition under the cover of secrecy in exactly the right spots, then wait until the time is ritght and they can crash the planes into the buildings and set off the charges. I goes off perfectly, the towers come down killing a couple of thousand civilians, the third tower gets pulled after seven hours and the Pentagon gets hit with a direct missle strike that does the job and nobody sees exactly what it is. This they are able to do in front of thousands of witnesses, with video and photogrqphs from every angle from all the news channels streaming live.
Now, the real work begins. They have to make sure that everyone involved doesn't tip off anyone else not involved, even anonymously.

They have to pay off and/or influence all the official investigators that will be commissioned to do the reconstructions and make sure that no explosive residues are tested for or found by cleanup crews. Not only do they have to seriously pervert the course of a massive investigation involving thousands of agents from law enforcement and intelligence organisations, but they have to be able to pin it on a known terrorist_group and make it stick. This they have done for years and must continue to do forever.

Which one is more likely?

I'm not saying that it cannot happen, but to have so many individuals involved that were all so amoral as to be involved in it for money or political reasons and to not have ANY of them sell out their co-conspirators nor have a twinge of conscience about it?

Come on.

Bugsy,

Do you believe in coincidences?

The 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers maintain that the collapse of the twin towers can be explained because:

1. a 767 had never been flown into such a building before, and
2. the construction was radically different from anything else before.

Yet WTC7's construction was far more conventional and no 767 had been flown into that (as I believe someone pointed out earlier).

It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum that hs not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since.

If you read the 9/11 Truth literature you would see that they also had to grapple with the awful implications of their theory being true.

Given the enormous deceit that U.S. has engaged in before, including its fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq, it would not seem completely improbable that some would have been prepared in 2001 to take things a few steps further.

It is not necessary for thousands to have knowingly participated in the conspiracy. To have convered up for it as most of the 9/11 did woud have only required acceding to pressure to not probe too deeply as the link to the story provided by Pericles at http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx about how the 9/11 commission used evidence obtained under torture in their report.

Those who took away the steel from the collapsed WTC7 so fast need not have been in the know, even if they participated in the cover-up.

Coincidences happen.

The thing is, while the people participating in any cover-up do not have to be 'in the know', they do have to be kept from finding anything incriminating. You don't just have to make sure there's no evidence left, you have to make it fit the story. This doesn't just make the job harder, but exponentially so.

This doesn't just go for tower 1, 2 or 7. It goes for the Pentagon clean-up, it goes for the downed plane in Pennsylvania and subsequent clean-up and media coverage(or did that just 'not happen' as some were given to thinking). Independent researchers and investigators have to be kept from discovering anything that doesn't fit, because if they do, they need to either be eliminated or paid off right?

At the end of the day, all you have is a puddle of 'molten steel', and an observation of "that looks like a controlled demolition". Weak, mate, real weak.

Back to coincidences, the US administration us now fond of telling us that "the terrorists only have to get it right once, we have get it right 100% of the time". To flip it around a little, what's more likely, terrorists being lucky for a couple of hours or so, or a gigantic conspiracy that noone can seem to name being lucky for more than 7 years and counting. Until you brainiacs came along of course.