|
Post by echnaton on Jun 16, 2005 23:28:33 GMT -4
Here is something for the 9/11 conspiracy guys. A former professor at Texas A&M and former Bush administration labor economist believes that a controlled demolition brought down the three buildings of the World Trade Center. An article in the Texas A&M student newspaper The Battalion says this
There is no mention as to why we should accept the opinion of a labor economist on the failure of steel structures. A&M is a good school, but it has its share of crackpot profs. There was one guy who confirmed the infamous cold fusion experiments some years ago, but I don’t think the school ever disassociated itself from his activities.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 17, 2005 2:36:13 GMT -4
The simple fact that it would have been impossible to get the explosives into the buildings and prep them for demolition without anyone knowing makes this guy wackier that wacky.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 17, 2005 2:59:38 GMT -4
Did you people know that the TITANIC was not actually sunk by an iceberg, but in reality sunk by a failed experiment in nuclear fission?
I say this as an expert in aviation.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 17, 2005 9:20:49 GMT -4
The simple fact that it would have been impossible to get the explosives into the buildings and prep them for demolition without anyone knowing makes this guy wackier that wacky. Yes, but what does an economist know about human behavior. It not like he is supposed to be an expert in the social sciences. [conspiracy mode] On the other hand, the Gates quoted in the story is Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of the Texas A&M, a career CIA employee and former head of the agency in the early nineties. Appointed by no other that G.H.W. Bush. There is now telling how long the illuminati have been planning this. Gates was undoubtedly placed in his current position at A&M so he would be in a available to discredit this economist and quash all research into 9/11 events at the school. [/conspiracy mode] Enquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 17, 2005 14:48:43 GMT -4
Yes, but what does an economist know about human behavior. Or structural engineering... or controlled demolition... or...
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jun 17, 2005 16:59:56 GMT -4
What about those pictures at the Pentagon, which shows an unscathed lawn George Bush wanted to clamp down on civiliberties and invade Iraq to get his hands on all tha oil - of course
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jun 17, 2005 22:40:18 GMT -4
I haven't saw any photos of an "unscathed" lawn (except jack whites : Where are they posted?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 17, 2005 23:27:06 GMT -4
Well I want t know why the lawn should have damage anyways, the plane didn't hit the lawn, but it did hit the Helipad and the generator shortly before ploughing into the building and they both showed appropriate damage and distance between the damge to have been done by a 767's engines. Of course you won't read about that on any of the conspiracy sites.
|
|
|
Post by rustylander on Jun 18, 2005 10:08:12 GMT -4
An inside job would mean including the possiblity that the bombs were planted by the FBI/CIA while doing "security checks". That's how it could be done.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 18, 2005 11:23:34 GMT -4
An inside job would mean including the possiblity that the bombs were planted by the FBI/CIA while doing "security checks". That's how it could be done. Are you talking about the Pentagon or the WTC? When you say bombs do you mean demolition charges? Demolition charges are not simply bombs, and setting them requires that a significant portion of the buildings' interior be stripped away to access structural members. It could not have been done covertly.
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jun 18, 2005 13:19:00 GMT -4
Since our out-of-his-area-of-expertise economist's comments are entirely about the WTC, it's reasonable to assume that Rusty is also talking about the WTC. To the best of my knowledge, "controlled demolition" is not among the conspiracy theories which have been floated about the Pentagon attack. It's pretty useless to speculate about how something could have been done before establishing good reason to think that it was done. It's also a rather common HB mistake, which is why you'll see the term "subverted support" in many of Jay's posts- that's what it's called when someone spins explanations for a phenomenon that doesn't actually exist. The entire "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory rests on two pillars: a perceived resemblance between the collapse of the WTC towers and the explosive demolition of buildings, and reports of explosion-like noises as the towers collapsed. As to the first, if you spend some time watching films of genuine explosive demolitions (try Implosion World) and pay attention to what you see , notably the numbers of charges used, the sequence in which they are detonated and the way in which the building collapses,. and compare these to the films of the WTC collapse, you'll notice that the appearances aren't congruent or even particularly similar. The hypothesis is based on similar appearances. The appearances aren't actually similar. A shot of subverted support for the house, on me! As for the second item: it depends on the ability of people who have not had any extensive experience with either explosions, building demolitions or structural faliures to distinguish between the sounds of demolition charges going off and steel members breaking and to identify each reliably. Now, I can reliably distinguish between the distortion produced by a bad metal-to-metal connection, that produced by a bad opamp or that produced by a bad bias oscillator- and find the funky switch which is causing the problem so fast it makes the client googly-eyed. I can do this because in twenty years of earning a living troubleshooting pro audio gear I've had thousands of opportunities to listen to the various kinds of zark produced by different failures, to trace them to their causes with standard troubleshooting techniques and thus to learn the characteristic sounds of each kind of failure. (BTW, I can also detect and identify the odor of burnt components at concentrations so low that normal people don't even notice that there's a smell- another of those perceptive abilities that come only from extensive experience.) Someone who doesn't have that degree of experience can't draw conclusions or even working hypotheses on the basis of sound. At any given time they might be right, but they won't be right reliably. Consequently I routinely ignore diagnoses proffered by people who aren't qualified to make them and simply add their descriptions to the list of observations to be taken into account. Did any of the people claiming to have heard explosions have the kind of experience which would allow them to identify the sound of demolition charges reliably? If not, all that we really have is a description of a loud bang or crack to add to the list of observations- not a usable conclusion. If we haven't demonstrated the existence of explosions, there's no point to speculating about how explosives could have been planted. Let's have another round of subverted support, boys! ;D
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 18, 2005 14:35:12 GMT -4
Very nice first post, ktesibios. I agree with you completely.
By the way, welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 10, 2005 23:58:27 GMT -4
Well I want t know why the lawn should have damage anyways, the plane didn't hit the lawn, but it did hit the Helipad and the generator shortly before ploughing into the building and they both showed appropriate damage and distance between the damge to have been done by a 767's engines. Of course you won't read about that on any of the conspiracy sites. Not to mention that even in Jack White's photos one sees that much of the lawn is at a level 8 or 10 feet below that of the first floor of the building or the helipad.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 11, 2005 0:06:36 GMT -4
As for an economist being an expert on collapsing buildings I have been told time and again that he is a Ph.D. and Ph.D.'s are very smart people. The person who says this also refers to Thomas Eagar as an idiot. hmmm, go figure
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 13, 2005 15:37:08 GMT -4
I just want someone to tell me why the buildings, if it was a controlled demolition, didn't collapse from the bottom? Maybe I'm a dullard, missing all the unseen intricacies. Or maybe I've just been perusing too (*&^# many CT sites, looking for a real meaningful bit of evidence... Dang, bigfoot's drinking from the dog dish out back, gotta run... Dave
|
|