A good, rational take on 9/11

[Cavalier22]

"The real bafflement here is why the media even gives these (9/11 conspiracy theorists) coverage. Compare the two viewpoints. On the one hand we have thousands upon thousands of hours of forensic science, intelligence gathering, and contemporary media. On the other, we have none of these. The two viewpoints are not equally valid. We're not talking about a religious discussion here, we're talking about an actual forensic event witnessed by dozens of people. Just because a number of people believe something doesn't make it a legitimate alternative viewpoint. I'm not trying to evangelize here. If someone manages to come up with some new evidence, such as a warehouse where the government is keeping all the passengers from the planes involved in the attacks, a missile fuselage, or otherwise, I'm more than happy to change my viewpoint. I'd rather be right than win an argument. I'm not holding my breath on this one, though. If the US government couldn't conspire a way to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to save face, I doubt they're capable of pulling off 9/11."

[benchmstr]

the coach says it was gods will

bench

[Brixtonbulldog]

"The real bafflement here is why the media even gives these (9/11 conspiracy theorists) coverage. Compare the two viewpoints. On the one hand we have thousands upon thousands of hours of forensic science, intelligence gathering, and contemporary media. On the other, we have none of these. The two viewpoints are not equally valid. We're not talking about a religious discussion here, we're talking about an actual forensic event witnessed by dozens of people. Just because a number of people believe something doesn't make it a legitimate alternative viewpoint. I'm not trying to evangelize here. If someone manages to come up with some new evidence, such as a warehouse where the government is keeping all the passengers from the planes involved in the attacks, a missile fuselage, or otherwise, I'm more than happy to change my viewpoint. I'd rather be right than win an argument. I'm not holding my breath on this one, though. If the US government couldn't conspire a way to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to save face, I doubt they're capable of pulling off 9/11."

Someone call an am-boo-lance.. we actually have another rational, objective member on GetBig.  I'm about to have a heart attack.

[seauantea]

"The real bafflement here is why the media even gives these (9/11 conspiracy theorists) coverage. Compare the two viewpoints. On the one hand we have thousands upon thousands of hours of forensic science, intelligence gathering, and contemporary media. On the other, we have none of these.

To be sure, The 911 Commission are "9/11 conspiracy theorists" themselves by virtue of their '19 Islamic terrorists with box-cutters' theory. I wonder if the author of the above noted statement even understands the meaning of "conspiracy"?

Many of the individuals referred to as "9/11 conspiracy theorists" have PhD's and use "forensic science, intelligence gathering, and contemporary media" to validate their alternative hypothesis.

The two viewpoints are not equally valid. We're not talking about a religious discussion here, we're talking about an actual forensic event witnessed by dozens of people.

Many of those "dozens of" witnesses are "9/11 conspiracy theorists" of the unofficial variety. Their testimony was largely ignored by The 911 Commission, which is unsurprising when one learns The Bush Administration hand picked the members. Theoretically, if 9/11 was self inflicted with Bush Administration complicity or involvement, and the Bush Administration picked those investigating it, would a "good, rational" individual expect them to be impartial? Let us not forget the Warren Commission was chastised by Congress in the 1970's hearings which concluded with a 76% probability there was a conspiracy based on a second shooter.

Just because a number of people believe something doesn't make it a legitimate alternative viewpoint. I'm not trying to evangelize here. If someone manages to come up with some new evidence, such as a warehouse where the government is keeping all the passengers from the planes involved in the attacks, a missile fuselage, or otherwise, I'm more than happy to change my viewpoint. I'd rather be right than win an argument. I'm not holding my breath on this one, though. If the US government couldn't conspire a way to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to save face, I doubt they're capable of pulling off 9/11."

I am having a hard time following the logic here; the US government would be incapable of orchestrating 9/11 but 19 Muslims with box cutters were able to?

As for evidence that contradicts the "official story", allow me to quote myself:

Without definitive knowledge, my strong inclination is buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the WTC complex were brought down by means of controlled demolition involving pre planted explosives.

1) The Purdue simulations postulate the likely result of the North Tower impact was the loss of between 9 and 11 interior columns (on the 3 floors affected) out of a possible 47:
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html
In and of itself, this does not seem enough to cause collapse in a highly redundant structure such as one of the Twin towers. This seems even less likely upon considering the 15 or so floors above the impact zone in the North Tower are the lightest in the building.

2) It is highly debatable whether jet fuel ignition and resultant hydrocarbon fires would have the intensity (both in terms of temperature and duration) to weaken the remaining structure to the point of collapse.

3) Given the Empire State Building was struck by a B52 years before, the Twin Towers were designed with the possibility of airliner impact in mind. In January of 2001, WTC Construction and Project Manager Frank De Martini (who died on 9/11) said in an interview, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid ­ and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
http://www.911eyewitness.com/samples/demartini.php

4) Witnesses such as last survivor William Rodriguez testified before The 911 Commission regarding explosions in the North Tower basement before the first impact:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8536008651248732897
This testimony was ignored in the final report.

5) Here is a clip outlining the molten metal discovered at ground zero by first responders, contractors and volunteers as well as John Gross of NIST denying any knowledge of its existence. This is of particular importance because the fires in the Towers were nowhere near hot enough to melt steel, a sentiment John himself reverberates:

6)To pre-empt those who would put forth this molten metal is not steel and possibly aluminium which burns at a lower temperature within the range of “dirty” hydrocarbon fires such as those at the WTC, please address the NASA thermo imagery findings which put the temperatures at ground zero beyond that range:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

To be sure, having a computer model reveal the mechanics of collapse without explosives does not negate the possibility that collapse was the result of explosives; keep an open mind. If anyone is interested in a scientific dissection of the NIST report on the collapse of the twin towers, watch Kevin Ryan (formerly of Underwriters Laboratories, the company charged with certifying the steel):
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

[Cavalier22]

"Let us not forget the Warren Commission was chastised by Congress in the 1970's hearings which concluded with a 76% probability there was a conspiracy based on a second shooter."

I don't have the motivation to argue over your post, but I will say let us not also forget that since that hearing that found 76% probability technological advances in the field have enabled experts to bring that probability to below 1%.  Although I doubt you will stop quoting that as past evidence of a government conspiracy

[seauantea]

Do you mean the testing done by the NSA (only 3 years after the congressional hearings) which concluded none of the noises on the Dictaphone belt were gunshots? Or something else?

If so, please read:
http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf

With a rigorous statistical analysis one arrives at a calculation for the probability that the recording contains a random pattern which by chance resembles the acoustic signature of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll at no more than p = 0.037

Leaving that issue aside, would you be so kind as to comment on:
-the pre assassination ties between Ruby and Oswald
-the substandard secret service detail Kennedy received that day
-the incredible luck Oswald had to be working in a building on the motorcade route

Legitimate questions about 9/11 are once again circumvented. Without the “motivation” to answer them, I am compelled to ask why you posted that thoughtless statement in the first place?