And how do you know all this?Did you watch the video, it's explained rather well there I think.
And how do you know all this?Did you watch the video, it's explained rather well there I think.Yes, I'm quite well aware of it. If you were to scroll through the comments on that video you'd eventually find some from me. So for clarity: with Myles, you fully accept the NIST WTC 7 report and its methods (including the computer model which is briefly glimpsed in this video) and consider its conclusions to be scientifically sound. If so, why not post your reasons for this in the "Any scientific evidence for WTC 7 fall theory?" thread.
Yes, I'm quite well aware of it. If you were to scroll through the comments on that video you'd eventually find some from me. So for clarity: with Myles, you fully accept the NIST WTC 7 report and its methods (including the computer model which is briefly glimpsed in this video) and consider its conclusions to be scientifically sound. If so, why not post your reasons for this in the "Any scientific evidence for WTC 7 fall theory?" thread.It's a question of probability. While it's possible a small but elite rogue element within the American power structure did carry out an internal attack, I also think it's highly improbable. I think it's much more likely that there was much greater knowledge by those in a position to do something about it that an attack was imminent, but that's far different from being an active participant. There's too much evidence for the involvement of radical Jihadists being behind the attack and too little for American government involvement at the level to make something like this work. I'm not posting in the WTC 7 thread because I think it's about the unresolved emotions from 9/11, not the facts.
Yes, I'm quite well aware of it. If you were to scroll through the comments on that video you'd eventually find some from me. So for clarity: with Myles, you fully accept the NIST WTC 7 report and its methods (including the computer model which is briefly glimpsed in this video) and consider its conclusions to be scientifically sound. If so, why not post your reasons for this in the "Any scientific evidence for WTC 7 fall theory?" thread.It's a question of probability. While it's possible a small but elite rogue element within the American power structure did carry out an internal attack, I also think it's highly improbable. I think it's much more likely that there was much greater knowledge by those in a position to do something about it that an attack was imminent, but that's far different from being an active participant. There's too much evidence for the involvement of radical Jihadists being behind the attack and too little for American government involvement at the level to make something like this work. I'm not posting in the WTC 7 thread because I think it's about the unresolved emotions from 9/11, not the facts.WTC 7 didn't collapse because it had emotional issues.
WTC 7 didn't collapse because it had emotional issues.That's true. But someones internal state of mind may influence how they interpret the facts.
WTC 7 didn't collapse because it had emotional issues.That's true. But someones internal state of mind may influence how they interpret the facts.That is always true, which is why we have the scientific method as our best chance.
Again, Fuzzy: if you think there is scientific reason to subscribe to the NIST version of events at WTC 7 via Myles Power, perhaps you could explain this on the relevant thread.
rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken placeinvolving 19 hijackers and OBL?Lois, I'm still wondering what your response to this question is.
rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken placeinvolving 19 hijackers and OBL? What sort of conspiracy is that? I never referenced 19 hijackers and OBL as a conspiracy. Those are your words, not mine.
It was a question, Lois. You pour scorn on conspiracies, so my question to you was if you believe in the “rational” narrative of 19 hijackers and OBL–which was of course a conspiracy (if you accept it).
That is always true, which is why we have the scientific method as our best chance.As has already been stated before here, the scientific method doesn't play favorites, you also need to apply it to your hypothesis which is far more complex than the existing version of events around 9/11. As I've pointed out the collapse of WTC 7 is also much more complex than the 2.5 second freefall that is presented as evidence that the building was brought down in an intentional and secret demolition by explosives. And I'm not really interested in going any farther in a discussion that will probably never end for some no matter what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanation.
what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanationis the question. The NIST report into WTC 7 examined no physical evidence from the building at all. What you describe as the "simplest explanation" is in fact merely a expensive computer animation that can't be independently checked. That's it.
It was a question, Lois. You pour scorn on conspiracies, so my question to you was if you believe in the "rational" narrative of 19 hijackers and OBL--which was of course a conspiracy (if you accept it).It may have been, but not a silent conspiracy. I knowvconspiracies exist but none that involve a lot of people and silence for years are possible, IMO. People conspire all the time but I have not pointed to any that I accept as definite conspiracies. I will expand on why I don't accept the the NIST report as any kind of conspiracy. I had written a piece of several paragraphs on this only to have it disappear from the screen before I could post it. (And before you mention it, no, I don't think it was caused by a conspiracy.)
what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanationis the question. The NIST report into WTC 7 examined no physical evidence from the building at all. What you describe as the "simplest explanation" is in fact merely a expensive computer animation that can't be independently checked. That's it. Based on the physical condition of the building after being hit by debris from a falling tower followed by hours of fire and backed up by the visual and audio evidence from the same video that when taken out of context is used by conspiracy theorists to show how the building was really brought down by explosives. Once again, it's most likely the building was already in massive failure when the outer shell began it's evident freefall. The outer shells of modern buildings mostly don't provide structural support, that's done by internal steel beams which can and do fail as the result of extreme and prolonged heat from the kind of fire that was going there and which was preceded by gross physical damage by debris from the falling tower. Is the problem for you the building fell at all, or didn't fit some preconceived notion of what it should look like? And if so what is that based on?
Why is this thread turning into a clone of the one on the towers in the science section? How about keeping the discussion on that limited to the original thread?
Occam
Why is this thread turning into a clone of the one on the towers in the science section? How about keeping the discussion on that limited to the original thread? OccamIt's just one of those things, Occam. All roads lead to a conspiracy theory. A little like all roads leading to a discussion of free will. ;-P
Why is this thread turning into a clone of the one on the towers in the science section? How about keeping the discussion on that limited to the original thread? OccamOccam, I have noted that responses in this thread on the topic of WTC7 should be posted in the thread you refer to at posts 7, 21 and 26.
what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanationis the question. The NIST report into WTC 7 examined no physical evidence from the building at all. What you describe as the "simplest explanation" is in fact merely a expensive computer animation that can't be independently checked. That's it. Based on the physical condition of the building after being hit by debris from a falling tower followed by hours of fire and backed up by the visual and audio evidence from the same video that when taken out of context is used by conspiracy theorists to show how the building was really brought down by explosives. Once again, it's most likely the building was already in massive failure when the outer shell began it's evident freefall. The outer shells of modern buildings mostly don't provide structural support, that's done by internal steel beams which can and do fail as the result of extreme and prolonged heat from the kind of fire that was going there and which was preceded by gross physical damage by debris from the falling tower. Is the problem for you the building fell at all, or didn't fit some preconceived notion of what it should look like? And if so what is that based on?My problem is that what you say is "most likely" is not based on a sound scientific investigation that involves a meaningful application of the scientific method and without a meaningful investigation claims of evidence or lack of evidence are meaningless. Again, what you describe as "most likely" is a conclusion drawn from an unverified computer animation produced by an investigation that examined precisely zero physical evidence and ignored critical demands of forensic fire investigation codes (and incidentally said that damage from the towers was not a factor in the collapse, which would apparently have occurred anyway). I suggest you explain on the other thread where there is any actual evidence to believe that the building behaved in the way it did in response to fire alone. You are saying it fell symmetrically because it had a moment-resisting shell? Very well: explain on the other thread what makes you believe that.
It was a question, Lois. You pour scorn on conspiracies, so my question to you was if you believe in the "rational" narrative of 19 hijackers and OBL--which was of course a conspiracy (if you accept it).It may have been, but not a silent conspiracy. I knowvconspiracies exist but none that involve a lot of people and silence for years are possible, IMO. People conspire all the time but I have not pointed to any that I accept as definite conspiracies. I will expand on why I don't accept the the NIST report as any kind of conspiracy. I had written a piece of several paragraphs on this only to have it disappear from the screen before I could post it. (And before you mention it, no, I don't think it was caused by a conspiracy.)I don't want to discuss the NIST report here as there's another thread for that. However you are claiming the AQ 9/11 conspiracy was not the result of extensive planning over time and was not "silent"? It certainly caught the US with her defences down. Or are you one if these conspiracy theorists that think US intelligence received but ignored multiple and specific warnings ahead if the attacks?
I don't want to discuss the NIST report here as there's another thread for that. However you are claiming the AQ 9/11 conspiracy was not the result of extensive planning over time and was not "silent"? It certainly caught the US with her defences down. Or are you one if these conspiracy theorists that think US intelligence received but ignored multiple and specific warnings ahead if the attacks?That's not really a conspiracy in the same sense as claiming that the US government itself was responsible for the buildings coming down. Al Qaeda was effectively a hostile foreign power with significant resources, Bin Landen alone had access to 1/4 of a billion dollars and there are reports his family was still supporting him with funds and logistics up until Sept. 2001. It's also possible the Pakistani ISI and some members of the Saudi government were involved. It's more like the surprise attack carried out by Japan in 1941. And there were extensive warnings including a previous attack on the WTC in 1993 and a plan in 1995 to carry out an extensive attack using airliners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot There was the attack on the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings to indicate the new capabilities of Al Qaeda. There were also a number of different sources warning the US government in the summer of 2001 that an attack was coming. There was also evidence from within the US of Saudi nationals on the terrorist watch list already inside the country but nothing was done until to late. Whether it was incompetence or something else that prevented effective counter-measures,there was plenty of evidence pointing to what was coming.