Physics Professor says WTC collapse caused by thermite

Yes. And the thermite was planted from the Grassy Knoll.

This is the same ol' physics prof. with the same ol' arguments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]238113[/snapback]</div>

Of course, there COULDN'T have been any other material within the towers that would result in a yellowish molten substance right?

Again, no it couldn't have been varying grades of concrete, insulation material, whatever else...


There are so many holes in this, it isn't even funny...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]238123[/snapback]</div>

Blindly believing the words of a small group of people must feel pretty good too, eh?

I'm not being ignorant. But I think that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. A massive conspiracy would be necessary to coordinate everything (which involves not only planting the explosives, but also arranging to have the planes crash into the buildings). What evidence is there that such a conspiracy was in place? None.

I find an interesting parallel between these comments and the comments in the other (Evolution/Intelligent Design) thread. Sure, it's possible that God created all of the fossil history and DNA ties just to fool us, but all data points to the "evolution by natural selection" explanation. Is it possible that someone planted explosives as part of a conspiracy to bring down the WTC? Sure. However, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and I've seen none of that to this point.

 

Well far be it from me to take sides one way or another. I do find it interesting that you reject the idea of a conspiracy here, considering the known facts. We had a cadre of individuals who came into this country, took flying lessons and commandeered four planes, three of which made coordinated attacks on strategic locations. This did indeed take a great deal of planning and preparation. It isn't inconceivable that a similar group was involved in planting explosve charges that could have been planned for detonation upon the impact of the planes...

 

Well, I will give the conspiracy theorists this little tidbit: I think it wouldn't not have been too difficult to plant some sort of structural explosives. I've lived in NYC, and every now and then, had business within the towers. Prior to the 9/11 paranoia, I do not think it would have been too difficult to simply get off on almost any floor. Heck, do you know how many food/take out deliveries take place every day in a building of such size just about filled with various businesses?

I have yet to be convinced of anything other than the obvious though. Steel beams are steel beams, but slam a what, 30 ton aircraft into them at xxx hundred mph, add tons of burning jet fuel, and, quite frankly, I'm surprised they stayed up as long as they did... The buildings absorbed the aircraft entirely, I thought that was pretty impressive... I mean who knows, maybe if they were smaller, had less fuel onboard, who knows...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mitchbf @ Apr 11 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]238132[/snapback]</div>

This I disagree with (and have since day 1). It worked because of it's simplicity. It does NOT take too much intelligence or skill to get behind the yoke of a 7x7, follow a heading and altitude, and guide it into a very big, and obvious building on a bright sunny day nonetheless. Take off and landings are a completely different story, but obviously, there weren't concerned about those aspects...

 

And how much more planning does it take to make and plant explosive charges in out of the way places in a large office tower that no one is suspectiing to be attacked?

In the grand scheme of things I don't disagree with you. The elegant plans are typically the ones that work. These guys pulled off a coordinated plan, however complex you want to view it. I don't think what is being proposed is any more complicated, particularly since this band of maniacs has shown that they're more than happy to stand there and throw the switch at the right time, even though they'll be dispatched along with the innocent bystanders!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Apr 11 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]238129[/snapback]</div>

The extraordinary proof was wisked away quickly to China for meltdown. Why, espeicially when it's against the law to destroy evidence. Who made that decision and why? Fortunately a lot of video proof and firsthand witnesses are still alive. Everyone that was working in the bowels of the building heard multiple explosions *below* them. Their testimony is on record.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]238135[/snapback]</div>

I knew you'd toss out the "credibility" factor... :lol:

Dude, anyone can see a conspiracy in EVERYTHING. You're ALWAYS going to have a faction that disagrees on ANY particular subject/concept (heck, use PC as a sample lol ).

You, are actually, a victim of your own accusation. You are simply "buying" what someone else is saying. You don't even think for yourself and consider such things like the "geo-physics" of that area. How do you know that one 110 story building CAN'T cause enough shock to knock down other buildings around it (which are ALL built differently)? You're not even questioning anything, just accepting it because someone has this piece of paper in a frame behind their desk. THAT is far more important than "credibility"....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ Apr 11 2006, 03:56 PM) [snapback]238141[/snapback]</div>

But of course, they MUST have been explosions right? Do you have the slightest idea of all that goes on in such situations?

Ok, I'm going to stop now, you conspiracy theorist believe what you like, it is your right.

...and the Department of Homeland Security has allowed you to post your viewpoint on a public message board, Bush can't be that bad then can he? :lol:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]238147[/snapback]</div>

Is it not totally conceivable a 110 story building crumbling to the ground could send enough of a "shockwave" to compromise the foundation of a nearby smaller building? Particularly when you consider the land mass for which those buildings are built upon, isn't exactly 100% solid mass.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 04:07 PM) [snapback]238150[/snapback]</div>

Yo man, I don't know... As far as I knew, it was all shipped to a big dumping ground somewhere in NJ for a while... why then, ultimately it was shipped out of the country, who knows, maybe because there wasn't a conspiracy?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]238135[/snapback]</div>

How do you know he's distinguished?

As someone who interacts every day with PhD physicists at one of the top universities in the world, let me just say that I would not trust them to make any sort of judgement on the structural stability of skyscrapers. Heck! I don't know if I'd trust them to make a judgement about lunch. Joking aside, I would give these assertions more weight if there was a few structural engineers on board. I have read a lot of documents about the physics of the collapse and have not seen anything that I would classify as "suspicious." I could go and read all of the sources that you cite in detail but, frankly, I'm not qualified to make the judgement as to whether they are credible. While I always keep an open mind, I choose to believe the most credible explanation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 11 2006, 01:01 PM) [snapback]238148[/snapback]</div>

That's total nonsense. Really.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 11 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]238150[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

Who's asking for more credibility in the first place? Do I CARE who you might find more credible? NO. I'm just posting my comments on the matter, take them how you like, just like most of what you write...