Note that he says it was "plausible" that explosives were placed in the building. Well it is also "plausible" that alien Kamikaze pilots, who are invisible and have the ability to possess humans, hit the building. After all, there is no way of DISPROVING the existence of the alien Kamikazes. However, as "plausible" as this may be, there is still no proof to suggest that they did it, and that's where the burden lies.

1. He is a physics professor, he clearly has no understanding of demolitions, engineering, or architecture.

2. Note that he repeats the same misconceptions about the 9-11 event and the same strawman tactics used by other conspiracy nuts. His arguments are identical to the other conspiracy theorists.

3. #2 is a perfect example of how conspiracy theories start. You start with an individual predisposed to believe in some kind of a conspiracy. Taking stock of all the knowledge he personally has of the event- and assuming that what he knows thus far is what EVERYBODY knows. As a result of this, and as you have seen demonstrated on this board numerous times, conspiracy theorists often get even the smallest details wrong regarding these events. The espousing of these ideas, spread far enough, begins to attract others who are impressed by the alleged "inconsistencies". Nobody ever takes the time to do actual get-out-of-the-house-and-dig research, and they never trace the stories they hear to the source to check if even the basic facts are real.

James Randi did an interesting experiment on this same phenomenon, which has been the meat-and-potatoes of the UFO movement for decades. If you were to say on the radio that you witnessed "strange lights" over some local highway or landmark on your way to the studio- sure enough you will find hundreds of people coming forth to corraborate your story with lurid details.

AE, I believe that most people who visit this forum would agree that the jews, and their shabboz goy servants, control the "mainstream" media. Correct?

Why would the masters of the media allow the very same media, that they own and control, to be used against them?

Note that he says it was "plausible" that explosives were placed in the building. Well it is also "plausible" that alien Kamikaze pilots, who are invisible and have the ability to possess humans, hit the building. After all, there is no way of DISPROVING the existence of the alien Kamikazes. However, as "plausible" as this may be, there is still no proof to suggest that they did it, and that's where the burden lies.............

well the government conveniently removed all the evidence so let's not be to tough on people resorting to limited evidence! in other known incidents such as Waco, the government denied access to the disaster site, then hid evidence which went against them, such as the metal door showing bullets entering the compound from the outside, not the inside. the door was "lost" and then found. govenrment agents that "lost" it were ultimately punished for suppressing exculpatory evidence.

1. He is a physics professor, he clearly has no understanding of demolitions, engineering, or architecture.
............

Come on now, engineering and demolitions and architecture are all 3 applied arts or technologies that are deriavative of the core scientific principles of physics. So I would have to disagree with you there quite strongly.

Note that he says it was "plausible" that explosives were placed in the building. Well it is also "plausible" that alien Kamikaze pilots, who are invisible and have the ability to possess humans, hit the building. After all, there is no way of DISPROVING the existence of the alien Kamikazes. However, as "plausible" as this may be, there is still no proof to suggest that they did it, and that's where the burden lies.

By the same token, JP, that's how superficial pooh-poohs usually begin: by comparing a plausible and reasonable, if perhaps non-specialist, account of what happened with a ludicrous alternative account (alien Kamikazes).

1. He is a physics professor, he clearly has no understanding of demolitions, engineering, or architecture.

"Clearly"? How so clearly? As a physics professor, he'd have a good general grasp of the thermodynamics, turbulence, and momentum tensor field of an explosion. On top of that, you really don't KNOW that he DOESN'T have specialist experience in modelling explosions. So why did you say "clearly"?

2. Note that he repeats the same misconceptions about the 9-11 event and the same strawman tactics used by other conspiracy nuts. His arguments are identical to the other conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy nuts is a ZOG buzz phrase. An earlier use of the expression was to denigrate anyone who thought that the Jews might have decisive control within the mass media.

James Randi did an interesting experiment on this same phenomenon, which has been the meat-and-potatoes of the UFO movement for decades. If you were to say on the radio that you witnessed "strange lights" over some local highway or landmark on your way to the studio- sure enough you will find hundreds of people coming forth to corraborate your story with lurid details.

Uh-huh.

With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

In contrast with the yahoos in your "strange lights over some local highway" comparison, this guy is a physics professor, and what he has said about concrete being powdered by explosives but not powdered by fuel fires and falls is unarguably true. Without explosives, the WTC concrete would not have been powdered, but merely broken into chunks. That's TRUE, J.P. As in "it can be demonstrated." Kerosene fires don't break concrete at all. A fall from 300 meters breaks concrete slabs into bits, but does not powderize them. As you analyze these facts, what has yet to be shown you, what is it that you require, in order to acknowledge that no fire-and-fall powdered all that concrete?

Not to be insulting, but you've begun sounding like certain people who don't want to acknowledge what the lack of prussian blue on the alleged Nazi extermination building's bricks means.

Jerry Abbott

Slovjanski, your nik claims to be the "Voice of Reason" and yet you don't use reason you use implausible examples and a snearing attitude. It's fine to approach a controversial subject with caution. But you merely obfuscate a reasonable approach to the problem. What's your point?

The professor is advancing legitimate objections to the doctored data that the government produced.

Even the New York Firefighters claim that it was an inside job since they have been slapped with a federal gag order not to talk about what they observed on that day. And they were prevented from investigating the disaster site to find the causes of the collapse -- which is their official duty as firemen.

Factor in the dancing and cheering groups of Jews who were caught videotaping the disaster, many of whom were later proven to be Mossad operatives who worked for the Israeli moving company that had offices in the towers (who else could move stuff around a big building than a moving company?), and factor in a lot of other FACTS, and you can put the pieces of the puzzle together with ease. The whole thing was a Mossad operation with the complicity of the Bush White House.

Don't be surprised if this professor who is raising these questions is found to have committed "suicide" or perhaps is accidentally run over by a cement truck.

Squibs on WTC7

1. He is a physics professor, he clearly has no understanding of demolitions, engineering, or architecture.

Why not? Having a good knowledge of physics clearly helps understanding engineering or demolitions, and he may have other formal education besides his academic titles in physics. For instance, Henri Poincaré, the man who really invented special relativity, had a formal education as a mining engineer besides his education as a mathematician.

2. Note that he repeats the same misconceptions about the 9-11 event and the same strawman tactics used by other conspiracy nuts. His arguments are identical to the other conspiracy theorists.

This is no refutation at all. In fact, the label 'conspiracy theory' could in principle be attached to any political theory which acknowledges the fact that group interests (like Jewish interests) are often a driving force behind political developments.

James Randi did an interesting experiment on this same phenomenon, which has been the meat-and-potatoes of the UFO movement for decades. If you were to say on the radio that you witnessed "strange lights" over some local highway or landmark on your way to the studio- sure enough you will find hundreds of people coming forth to corraborate your story with lurid details.

Now, this really has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing here. Have you ever written a paper which was published in a peer-reviewed journal? Comparing this to gossip about UFOs is fatuous.

It seems to me that you have difficulties admitting that you may be wrong about this one. If you really were a voice of reason, you would not have engaged in any attempt to defend or refute the theory that 9/11 was the handiwork of Arabs. After all, the problem is very complex. It is perfectly reasonable to adopt the view that we are, at least for the time being, unable to find out the truth about 9/11 because this is an explosive issue and because the Jew has destroyed the independence of science in the media in the western world.

You claim (correctly so) that some 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold irrational views and that this may damage the reputation of our movement. But being seen as a movement paralyzed by infighting and split into sectarian factions is probably equally destructive, and the often personally insulting style of your responses to the 9/11 threads has certainly contributed to that. Without your fighting against the windmills, these threads probably would have only 1/3 of their actual length.

If the theory that the WTC towers and another WTC building were demolished with explosives is true, consider what it means.

It means that the US government has ordered or condoned a military attack on a civilian target within the territory of the United States of America. Whereas the politicians within the US government have been carrying out racial treason for a long time, this would be the first incident since the Civil War for which a sitting US president committed a treasonous war crime against the people he had promised to serve and the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Abraham Lincoln could argue that he was trying to preserve the country as a whole by attacking it in part. Bush couldn't even do that much.

It means that the US government, Bush in particular, has murdered or condoned the murder of thousands of US citizens (or reasonable facsimians thereof) in order to achieve some political goal of his, or the political goal of someone to whom he is beholden.

Shot heard round the world?

That's why the Establishment works so hard to decry the explosion theory as the goofy invention of Conspiracy Nuts.

Jerry Abbott

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the word "Plausible" means "apparently or conceivably true". I don't think that the idea of "alien kamikaze pilots" is apparently or conceivably true; however, the idea of pre-placed explosives is.

jews did wtc lol

hmmm, seems like one of the more qualified expert opinions we have seen! any comments from the skeptics of this theory?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

Add this to the stew
Dov Zakheim's Homeland Security biz and the remote control of aircraft

COMMAND TRANSMITTER SYSTEM (CTS)

The CTS at the Sea Range provides safe, controlled testing of unmanned targets, platforms and missiles, including ballistic missiles and other long-range vehicles.

The CTS is a tunable UHF FM transmitter designed for ground use in controlling guided missiles, pilotless aircraft and pilotless boats.

If the WTC was indeed imploded, arabs would automatically be blamed (because they had already tried it before). So, what purpose was served by crashing planes into them at the same time? Or was that just a serendipitous event?

Well if you are trying to create fear and chaos and rile up the 'mericans, you need to do something big that gets attention, and that was pretty big. That way they are more "pliable" for things like the Patriot Act. "Save us, Big Brother, Save us!"

If the WTC was indeed imploded, arabs would automatically be blamed (because they had already tried it before). So, what purpose was served by crashing planes into them at the same time? Or was that just a serendipitous event?

I think that the hijackings were bona fide. We do know that the Israelis were following around Muhammed Atta and that US milint team "ABle Danger" or whatever, had their eyes on them too. So if the USA and Israel knew where they were, that they were alqueda, is it possible they knew the plan, and actually let them go ahead with it, and leveraged the incident with a demolition? So the 'Rabs to catch the blame?

I mean that would be a pretty complex stunt, but it wouldnt have been impossible.

Still, you make a good point.

I think we have to not just believe what we would want to believe, but try and be objective, and not give credence to unsupported theories.