Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

OK, i knew it started with a nine... lol. so much for posting after work...

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Actually the 4th hijacked plane that crashed in Pennslyvania was United Airlines Flight 93 - not flight 73 or 91.

As for many conspiracy theories, I really can't buy into them. I have a big problem with the witnesses hearing a "missile" part. Were they aeronautical engineers or pilots or people who can actually tell the difference between an aircraft engine at full speeds and a cruise missile? No, they were just ordinary civilians for the most part. To them, any high-pitched wailing sounds like whatever they want it to sound like. Some may have said it sounds like a dentist drill, while others will say a missile. Are both correct? Yes.

Is this any different than describing anything that is really loud (read: hurricane, tornado) as a freight train? I've been through a Category 4 hurricane, and it is incredibly loud and a freight train is not bad analogy. But at the same time, I can also say that it sounds like the backup generator room where I work when it is generating away at full-power. Now an ordinary unknowing citizen is never going to compare a hurricane to a generator room, because they've never been in one and they don't know what it sounds like. They will only describe things in terms they know.

And maybe, just maybe, some details of this post don't add up. Did Arthur Dutra really write this post, or did the government plant a robot at his computer while aliens abducted him in a UFO to Area 51, and showed him videos of the second sniper from the grassy knoll in Dallas, as well as videos of how the government Photoshopped images of astronaut's bootprints onto to the lunar surface. OMG, I said too much! Must.... resist.... CIA.... agents.... :p

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

While Steve Jones may have a PhD in physics, that hardly gives him the credentials to contradict the countless structural engineers who've done analyses of the fall of the Twin Towers. His motivation is political and from some of his other publications, his science is suspect as well.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

I vote for the Robot. This is Chief Delphi, after all... :D

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

Though completely unrelated to the physics aspect of this thread, here is what could be another "piece of the puzzle" as Steve Jones would have put it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nav=rss_nation

I will not copy the article into this post due to copyright. That is all.

;)

-Joe

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

The planning
Wiring the building with explosives: Ignoring that the people in the building probably would have noticed the construction going on, the walls being torn out, the floors getting replaced. We've all seen how hard it is just keeping a robot going: How did the controls for the explosives remain fully intact after a fully-fueled 767 hit them and set off a huge fire? How did the pilots of the planes hit the exact floor that the explosives were wired at so that it looked real? To answer this question, the conspiracy theorists need to present a floor plan of the wiring needed to sustain an airliner hit and subsequent fuel/building fire.

The competence and the motive
Regarding the ability of the government to actually execute this plan: We have seen over the years that the CIA/military/administration is not particularely competent in various ways. The intelligence pre-iraq, the execution of the post-war cleanup in Iraq, the inability to capture Osama, the response to Katrina, the ENDLESS leaks of information that they deem classified or pertinent to national security. Hell, if you read the entire set of NORAD transcripts on 9/11, it would almost be a comedy if the results of their screwups weren't so grave. How could an administration that has had so many failures and so many leaks successfully execute a plan like this without anyone involved coming forward or the plan going wrong? What was their motive? If their motive was political gain, now that the administration has been in pretty dire straits for almost a year, why haven't we seen another attack?

The crew
A scheme to demolish the WTC 1, 2, and 7 with explosives would probably require hundreds of people. The 20 people that flew the planes would all have friends and family that would wonder where their loved ones went. The people that wired the buildings would wonder why they're placing little black boxes in very specific points around every support column in the building on a specific floor. Those people, if they didn't already know what they were doing, might have figured it out when the towers went down. They would need to be kept quiet. The people that acquired the explosives, hired the contractors, engineered the explosives layout, and paid the bills need to be kept quiet.

The pilots
If the people flying the planes weren't the 20 men shown, who all had backgrounds in extremist islam, where are those men now? Who are the people talking in arabic on the black box tapes? Is it just a coincidence that 20 arabic men with extremist backgrounds just happened to be flying on the 4 planes that crashed? Was the CIA/Illuminati/Presidents planning this for so long that they recruited these men in their teenage years and forced them to attend camps so that there was a good backstory? If the planes weren't piloted and hijacked by the arab men that the mainstream story claims they were, how come all the passengers who made phone calls said they were being held by arab men? Why would the CIA risk having some of its own agents (the 19 hijackers) deported when they overstayed their visas?

How have all these people been kept quiet? Throughout history, there have been whistleblowers in almost everything. The worst verified whistleblower for 9/11 were the people in the FBI that came forward saying that various briefings had talked about arab men at flight schools, and that Bush had been briefed on Osama's plan to turn airliners into missiles.

The government and mainstream stories has answers for all these questions. The mainstream story has a theory for who, how, where, why, and when all the events leading up to 9/11 occurred. The conspiracy theorist approach needs to be able to answer ANY of these questions plausibly, and with strong evidence. If it cannot, then it cannot stand up.

9/11 conspiricies are overated
 

The biggets problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on descrediting existing explanations or conclusions... Which would be ok, except that they end up snowballing into some fairly exotic views of reality that an occam's razor has a bloodbath with.


BTW, 9/11 is really overrated with who said/did/cover-upped what. Every "fact" you can bring out in support or against whatever theory or explanation you mention, in short, can't really be verified. Merely mentioning this kind of stuff in many circles will lead you to be being labeled a nutcase with no regard for patriotism, etc...

Study something more interesting that won't get people so worked up... I suggest reading about the orgins of the american education system. That is a topic which is much easier to logically debate and argue about, the facts and motivations are very well established, and people actually have a higher regard for you studying it.

The worse you can get off with is an deep appreciation for the modern school system.


Oh how I love the game of life.

Re: Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...
 

For those of you interrested, tonight on the O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, Bill will speak with a guest from Popular Mechancs about all of the 9/11 'myths'. The segment on tv said they will talk about the professor who thinks the government is behind 9/11 attacks.

Check your local listings for the 'no spin' analysis.