Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11

Well, DA, The knifer killers were Islamic fundies. Right? Likely if explosives were set throughout the building they would have been Arab looking Islamists and very likely have gotten detected. I believe the implication of the conspiracy theory is that other than Islamic fundies allegedly did all the sophisticated detonation setup throughout the building and the conspiracy people want to shift the blame from Islamic terrorism to other, such as the Israeli or US government and that Islamists would support the conspiracy claim so as to debunk the justification of invading Afganistan and Iraq.
My message was to the effect that the Al-Quaeda would want credit for this masterful victory by a few knife wielding terrorists.Also, likely the actual implementers of the plan would not be co-conspiring with anyone but other Al-Quaeda people to do the job.Does that clarify my point?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

We have no idea who was involved but what we can figure out is the science of the building collapses. The explanation the government gave is obviously flawed.

I read the analysis and it does not talk about many of the main arguments of the building collapses. It has no sources. And the person who wrote it bases his theories on assumptions, not science. Testing the theory is what counts and all this person does is say "no that did not happen" without explaining why or what experiment they did to provide evidence. You should read some of the opposing side articles. The majority of them are written by professors with phd's.

What is the cause of the flaws? Incompetence? From the NIST site:

quote:

---

Some 200 technical experts”including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia”reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

---

How could so many investigators from different places come to the same flawed conclusions? I'm not saying that it isn't possible, I'm just asking why so many people reached agreement on what is being claimed to be a flawed conclusion, especially seeing that the conclusion is so flawed that a bunch of people figured it out just by looking at video tapes.Why do you find the, er, alternate conclusion plausible?

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe you actually did read the report I linked you to as it does go into explanations of why they expressed the opinions.The link to the report can be found in Message 6.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thats ok I like long posts. Now lets think about this problem we have rationally. The world revolves around probability. Scientifically speaking there is a certain degree to which both scenarios can be true or false. Obviously you are on the opposing side of many people who lost friends and family who are fighting to find out the truth about 911. If it was the government, we need to come to a realization that our government is killing our own people. But there is no need to get hostile. Just because i'm looking for answers to questions does not mean I don't respect the people who died on 911. In fact there needs to be justice for 911, and our government has not been looking for osama bin laden at all. They've been using 911 for their own personal benifit. Such as putting fear into our society in order to invade iraq.I would prefer you to actually discuss this with me as opposed to just copying and pasting, but whatever.Puffs of dust:
This explains nothing. You seriously believe that air and debris can cause concrete to pulverize? You can do the simple experiment of dropping concrete from as high as you want and it WILL NOT pulverize to dust.Now think critically for a second. If it was the pancaking effect, wouldnt you think it would take a while for the building to collapse? Each floor provides resistance to the falling floors, however we can see there was no resistance because it fell at near free fall speed. Around 9 seconds! now can you imagine over 100 floors being collapsed in a pancake fashion one on top of the next in 9 seconds? We can drop a rock off the top of the building and it will reach the ground in about 9 seconds.Your next copy and paste is just ridiculous. Its like saying back in the 1950's oh we can never go to the moon because no one has ever done it. Its just idiotic reasoning.The next one is just even more ridiculous. Clean cuts? Hmmmm... I wonder how is it possible for there to be clean cuts in steel from fire? can other material slice the steel? Thats just ridiculous. It just proves the point even more because there were clean cuts of steel. Not a few, but a lot.I do agree with the point that it would take tons of the material to demolish a building of this size. But i don't see the point its making. There is video footage of some kind of molten lava pouring out of the building. Now i don't know about you but i find it VERY hard to believe that fire can melt steel to a liquid. We can even do this experiment very easily and i encourage you to try it out and prove me wrong.First, do me a favor, and watch a video and just count how long it takes for it to reach the ground. Lastly, how the hell did debris falling on top of other debris cause steel beams to project out the build providing enough force to cut the steel and be flung outward?

Ok do you want me to go over every single little detail of the article, because i will. I just find it a little annoying when you expect me to put in lots of effort into a post when all you do is post a link. These boards are for discussion.

Actually, if anyone was involved in a controlled demolition of the towers, government or not, we need evidence. Transcripts of communications. Witnesses to meetings. The actual people who planted the explosives.And evidence that people were actually in the buildings, actually planting explosives. And planting them in the correct places. I imagine that there are professional maintenance people regularly on duty. Are there any records of people mucking about the infrastructure during the weeks before 9/11?We also need motives. Motives to blow up two very large buildings filled with people that couldn't be accomplished by doing something on a very much smaller scale. Motives to blow up two very large buildings filled with people despite the consequences of being caught.Thinking rationally, we need to figure out the timing of the planes. Planes actually did fly into the buildings at this time. Coincidence? Were the terrorists in on the plot? Did "the government" know of the attacks, including the exact timing, and were able to prepare to take advantage of this?If there is no evidence that anyone actually did any of this, then I wonder if even Tazmanian Devil would agree that we have a conspiracy theory going on.- Okay. But there is a difference between thinking rationally about a problem and just making stuff up. Here, we seem to have a case of people making stuff up.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Hey, don't drag me into this. I know nothing about Collapsing-Building Mechanics.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Heh. Just a joke, Taz. I actually agreed with your post, there, at least as an initial stand on an issue.But I get a feeling that we're about to go into some familiar territory....

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Brad,Let's take this step by step.What about the planes? Did they exist? Personal information removed. --AdminEdited by molbiogirl, : typoEdited by Admin, : Remove personal info.

Well, if you want discussion, here goes.First, you asked the question "Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11".The answer to that is a resounding yes. Of course it was possible and the only really surprising factor is that the buildings did not fail sooner.Next, there is the question of whether or not some conspiracy theory might be possible?Again, of course.BUT...of all the possible theories out there controlled demolition is about the dumbest. Only an idiot would even consider controlled demolition as one of the possible scenarios.The amount of work and the disruption to the day to day use of the building over an extended period of many months just couldn't be kept a secret.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes they did exist, its kinda funny that you search for who I am. Yes everything is true do i care though? No, what I do care about is that the freaking government is out of control, and if we seriously don't do something early on were gonna turn into a fascists country. And btw at first i didnt know what you were talking about when you said giant wee wee, but i did a search, and that was a board that me and my friends posted on 5 years ago. And at the time it was not named that. and how did you know Im going to U of A and getting a ba in ecology... Thats registered to a different e-mail. OH yeah ROxie is quite beautiful isnt she?

OK. The planes exist.Who hijacked the planes?
Why were the planes hijacked?

You are not giving very valid arguments... I seriously recommend you watch "911 revisited." I know the arguments of both sides, its obvious you do not. I would like to have a civilized discussion about the subject, however its obviously pissing off a lot of people.