9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - a couple of questions for the critics

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

a couple of questions for the critics
Goto page Previous 1, 2

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject:

wobbler wrote:

How'd you know I did that????

Besides, many of my clients are'crazy' men. Who are statistically only marginally more likely to be violent than the population at large.

If poison was found in their bodies, I was a known poisoner, an empty bottle of poison was found at the scene, the crazy man worked for me, his axe was blunt and caused non-fatal injuries it'd be worth a look.

That's sort of the truther position.

Quote:

Actually, your example is falsifiable, but I can't see NASA bothering to try.

In principle, yes, in practice, no.

Quote:

However, MIHOP surely is falsifiable?

Again -- in principle, yes, in practice, no.

I don't know for sure that no evidence against a conspiracy theory will ever convince its supporters, but from my experience it seems that no matter what evidence is produced, there is always a fallback position that excludes that evidence. The most common one, of course, is the claim that whoever produced the evidence is in on the conspiracy.

Quote:

Time travel! of course...

Yeah, but the argument I'm making is that it's perfectly consistent with the general CT. If you had an argument that purported to evidence government TARDIS technology yoou could make it fit. My argument is it's consistent with the notion of a cover-up.

If it were consistent AND parsiminous then you might have something. Any "Just So Story" is consistent with the facts, but it doesn't mean that it is an accurate description of what happened.

Quote:

I agree I don't get the why of the wtc7 thing. Gutted by fire or otherwise.
I still think trying to present an overarching narrative would reduce trutherism to trying to vainly defend speculative narratives when they could be concentrating on 'the facts'.

But it WOULDN'T be speculative if all those huge, festering piles of overwhelming evidence supported it! If they DON'T support any sort of theory, then what good are they?

Quote:

If MIHOP were true and had been proved, the whole story would be tricky to piece together, surely?

No. It would have to make sense in SOME CONTEXT, even a convoluted one. Anyway, I don't think the reason a narrative hasn't been assembled is that it's tricky to do so. It's that the result would be utterly laughable and would instantly reveal just how ludicrous the whole movement is.

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject:

Anti-Sophist -

Quote:

The pre-9/11 intelligence, and circumstantial evidence is another area rife with mathematical misunderstanding. People think that for every coincidence they find, the probability of a conspiracy increases. That statement is provably false, mathematically.

More importantly, the 'LIHOP' conspiracy people suffer from many of the same logical flaws that plague the 'MIHOP' folks. The major difference is that the facts don't support MIHOP, at all, so you can usually attack 'missile theorists' and 'controlled demolition' people on physical grounds, showing their poor analysis. The LIHOP people tend to have all the facts, but use logical fallacies to draw conclusions they can't draw. Convincing people they are using logical fallacies is quite difficult, especially when they are unreasonable.

Negligence and criminal (or willful) negligence are different things... blaming Bush for not connecting the dots is a far more rational position, in my opinoin, than presuming Bush connected the dots, and just let it happen. Most Americans who criticize Bush on 911 fall into the first group, and most CTers fall into the second. Most CTers, however, quote the polls that inflate their own numbers, that include the first group.

Firstly, I feel compelled to start with a quote from the amazingly eloquent Mr White from another thread:

Quote:

From the JREF POV (at the extreme), these anomalies are assigned as co-incidences. Its co-incidence that three steel framed buildings fell on the same day for the first time in history becuase of the effect of fire. Its a co-incidence that there was large amounts of molten metal in the basements of all three... that Norad failed to stop the planes...and so on...
and this is becuase illogical explanations cannot make sense

From the 9/11 Truth POV(at the extreme), these anomalies are assigned as conspiracy. Its conspiracy that three steel framed buildings fell on the same day for the first time in history becuase of the effect of fire. Its a conspiracythat there was large amounts of molten metal in the basements of all three... that Norad failed to stop the planes... and this is becuase the official explanations given do not seem to make sense

There's a lot more in common here than the surface dis-agreement. We are all looking at the same events: but we are filtering them differently through the one peice of apparatus we all are dependent upon to function as human beings at all: our minds

Here's an example of why pure co-incidence theory can only suppress 9/11 truth: it can never stop these questions being asked, no matter how many reports etc critics produce: This image is of sunflowers: but it can also been seen in another way. Once it has been seen another way, it will never be seen as sunflowers again. 9/11 truth is like that: no amount or protestations that "its just sunflowers" is going to remove the perception that theres more going on than meets the surface of the eye (or the minds eye)

Dude - you've a way with words.
Better if I'd been bothered to put the picture there too though.
It's here:http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4774&start=120

You can demonstrate mathmatically that coincidences don't equal conspiracy and I'd agree that it's foolish to assume that all coincidences 'mean something' (I do put some store in synchronicity, though, mainly because of my own experience; I can't 'prove' anything - it's one of those subjective things).

However, I don't know the formulae, so I'll ask; does this take into account the consideration of the human motivation and purposefulness? Things we hypothesise about all the time, with good reason. It's not just a matter of mathematics, surely?

"Well PC Porcine, we know that the Brown brothers have been associating with members of the Smith gang. They own a hire car company from which we know the getaway car was supposedly stolen. We also know the Brown brothers have been spending a lot of money recently. But mathmatically, no amount of coincidences in any way implies a conspiracy, so let's forget all this and arrest some Pakistani guy on terrorism charges so we can get on TV"

Coincidences don't necessarily indicate a conspiracy, but where there is a conspiracy there may well be interesting coincidences. And it's not just 'conspiracy theorists' who follow them.

What logical fallacies does LIHOP use? It seems difficult to say LIHOP can currently be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but what's so illogical about LIHOP reasoning? Or even 'weak MIHOP' (no CD etc, but the terrorists were nurtured by/working for US intelligence).

It may well be a coincidence that 911 occured at a time when the US had had a major fallout with the Taliban and was sending troops to the region, one of widely ackowledged strategic importance. And (oh no! not that one!) qui bono isn't proof (but it's been important to criminal investigations since at least the Romans), but it certainly wasn't muslims that gained most from 911; it was a neocon godsend - all that antilibertarian legislation, an excuse for aggressive foriegn policy that serves your interests.
It at least gives a reason to consider the hypothesis. At which point does it get illogical?

Not to mention that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was a wholly disproportionate response. Even for America.
But wait! those poor Afghan people! The Taliban are so evil! We must bring democracy! Strange we never noticed how bad the Taliban are before...
Just like all those other humans rights abusers we ignore...

Ah! Here's a point...

America can be observed to consistently ignore or downplay human rights abuses in (or perpetrated by) countries it is allied to or who conform with broader strategic interests -
Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Israel, Indonesia etc

It trumpets loudly about them and/or uses them as a reason to intervene in enemy state such as -
Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Iran etc

In the case of the first two, human rights abuses were 'noticed' when they became enemies.

I propose, simply on the basis of this observed set of coincidences, that the concept of human rights abuses is largely or wholly irrelevant where a given state is an ally and used as propaganda against an enemy.

Is this use of coincidence rendered totally irrelevant/demonstrably untrue by the use of mathematics?

Am I a conspiracy theorist?

Aggle-Rithm -

Quote:

The "truther" position is more like this: The wounds COULDN'T have been made by an axe, the perpetrator was not strong enough to wield an axe, he wasn't even there that day, he wasn't really crazy, and I'm not saying that wobbler DID poison the guy, but we won't know for sure until we get another investigation that doesn't ignore the overwhelming axe-wound-absent-perp-not-crazy evidence.

See how it works? You start with a pre-conceived notion, then you come up with arguments that throw competing ideas into doubt. You would then come up with some lame theories that support the poisoning hypothesis, and claim that, although they are flawed, your attack on the competing hypothesis shows that it is flawed, too, so we need another investigation, etc., etc.

But it WOULDN'T be speculative if all those huge, festering piles of overwhelming evidence supported it! If they DON'T support any sort of theory, then what good are they?

No. It would have to make sense in SOME CONTEXT, even a convoluted one. Anyway, I don't think the reason a narrative hasn't been assembled is that it's tricky to do so. It's that the result would be utterly laughable and would instantly reveal just how ludicrous the whole movement is

And if the axeman was found to have a wasting disease in his arms that impaired movement? The wounds were consistent with a hammer?
The cctv in one room was 'mysteriously' not working and witnesses saw a man of different appearance in there?
We could go on and on.

I think you're making a sweeping assumption about how the truth movement operates and that all members of it think the same, moving as one like a shoal of fish.
One line of reasoning is:
I see the towers fall
I don't think the twin towers should have fallen so quickly, certainly not in the way they did.
I don't accept the offical explanation of the collapse mechanism.
Hey! wtc7 - looks like a CD! No way!
This report is full of inconsistencies....

And so on.
OK, if you dispute 'the facts', there's an argument about that, but you seem to be suggesting the truther community is, well, exclusively composed of people who said:
"Ok, I reckon the government did that. Best go find some dirt so I can make stick"
I'm sure some people did.
I'm sure some critics thought, when encountering trutherism,
"There's NO WAY the government would ever do that. I don't care what they say, this is a goddam conspiracy theory and I'll make damn sure I debunk everything thay say."
Are you privy to the thoughts and motivations of each and every truther?
Do you know how each and every one of them came to 'the truth'?
Many people say (and I wouldn't be so bold to call them liars) they saw 'anomalies' that led them to try and find out more. Why do they need a complete, overarching narrative? Might it be they see things they can't square and that bothers them. Of course it gets trenchant - when the arguments start, both sides 'dig in'.
You can make all kinds of speculative suggestions about how the 'big picture' fits together, but I'll wager few would be so bold to proclaim they know all 'the facts'.
Why blame the truth movement for being honest enough to admit things it's not sure of?

Quote:

You won't convince everyone, even if you find a hidden camera that survived showing the trusses actually 'failing'. Or find a fully authenticated Al Qaeda document from 2000 titled "Plot to attack America with no help whatsoever from the neocons".
But it is, in principle, falsifiable, and if you're right, sooner or later the truth movement will start running out of ammo and many will surrender.
Or the opposite.

Quote:

f it were consistent AND parsiminous then you might have something. Any "Just So Story" is consistent with the facts, but it doesn't mean that it is an accurate description of what happened.

Agreed. But the original argument was about how the position is consistent alongside other supporting 'evidence' to avoid it being a 'just so' story'. I was just saying the unreleased footage stuff is consistent with a cover up if you have other evidence to suggest a cover up may be likely. Otherwise, it's just a totally insubstantiated claim. Missile theorists believe the have evidence that 'proves' flight 77 'couldn't' have hit the pentagon, in which case it's reasonable to asssume the incriminating footage would be suppressed. I'm not saying I agree.

Oh Scar -

Thanks for the link
That's an interesting film...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

John White
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:32 am Post subject:

wobbler wrote:

Dude - you've a way with words.
Better if I'd been bothered to put the picture there too though.

Cheers mate. I'm a self-employed philosopher: words is what I do

here's a repost with the picture...I know what folks are like about checking up a link

John White wrote:

prole art threat wrote:

stateofgrace wrote:

John I have seen this video and I agree with the questions that need to be answered.

I agree totally there are serious unanswered questioned about 911.

So why do you not?

Why do you wish to bury all these genuine questions that the families deserve answers to in favour of bombs, missiles and no planes?

You know and I know this is the most honest movie ever made by the truth movement it is the flagship. No critic will question the motivation behind the likes of the Jersey girls.

But they do not support the more outrageous theories regarding this event.

Therein lays the difference between the genuine truth seeker and the conspirator.

The genuine truther genuinely seeks the truth.

The conspirator buries it all in outrageous theories.

You need to decide which one you are or this movement is going nowhere. Drop the dross, demand the truth, the genuine truth and keep demanding it and you will get support. Genuine support. And you may find the more and more people will sign up.

Your call John.

(Just thought I'd say)

*bowing out again*

Pathetic.

Prole: Olive branches: learn to at least shake the end a bit before burning them

SOG: Hello again

Well firstly, both for reasons of time and becuase of the depth of your question, I can only scratch the surface here

As you are probably aware, I don't spend my personal time arguing vociferously for for more unconventional 9/11 theories. My background is coming from the world of philosophy and esoteric spirituality, and over 20 years of exploring such ideas, it has given me an understanding of how to weigh information, no matter how bizzare, as balance of probabilities: and of the importance, as a communicator, of earthing these ideas by connecting them to consensus reality. With 9/11 activism, Im looking for information that has a high balance of probability, and thats what I personally go out and talk to people about (most definately on other internet forums, and in my community)

essentially the debate here in critics corner represents a dynamic between co-incidence theory and conspiracy theory at the "poles" of peoples POV

We ALL agree there are anomalies about 9/11: without exception

From the JREF POV (at the extreme), these anomalies are assigned as co-incidences. Its co-incidence that three steel framed buildings fell on the same day for the first time in history becuase of the effect of fire. Its a co-incidence that there was large amounts of molten metal in the basements of all three... that Norad failed to stop the planes...and so on...
and this is becuase illogical explanations cannot make sense

From the 9/11 Truth POV(at the extreme), these anomalies are assigned as conspiracy. Its conspiracy that three steel framed buildings fell on the same day for the first time in history becuase of the effect of fire. Its a conspiracythat there was large amounts of molten metal in the basements of all three... that Norad failed to stop the planes... and this is becuase the official explanations given do not seem to make sense

There's a lot more in common here than the surface dis-agreement. We are all looking at the same events: but we are filtering them differently through the one peice of apparatus we all are dependent upon to function as human beings at all: our minds

Here's an example of why pure co-incidence theory can only suppress 9/11 truth: it can never stop these questions being asked, no matter how many reports etc critics produce: This image is of sunflowers: but it can also been seen in another way. Once it has been seen another way, it will never be seen as sunflowers again. 9/11 truth is like that: no amount or protestations that "its just sunflowers" is going to remove the perception that theres more going on than meets the surface of the eye (or the minds eye)

So what is the ultimate answer?

For us all to realise that everything cannot be explained as co-incidence, and everything cannot be explained as conspiracy, to unite around the strongest balance of probabilities and, with Unity, to demand our governments account for themselves before we get sucked into WWIII... is one possible answer. i quite like it

To me, Press for Truth represents the most promising common ground between the two poles of perception that has come to light so far, and in my actions discussing it, I do seek to offer a lead by example

And here's the "solution"

Once it looks like "9/11 Truth", its never gonna just be sunflowers again: "hidden in plain view" "eyes wide shut" etc
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject:

wobbler wrote:

How about just one more round.

What if a team of doctors examined the man and said they were axe wounds, while a highly qualified entymologist looked at a grainly photo and said, no, they were made by a hammer. Would you automatically assume the doctors are lying, and therefore YOU must have poisoned him?

The "truth" movement does something very similar:

1. Planes ran into the buildings, the building caught fire and fell down.
2. Highly qualified structural engineers examined the evidence and came out with a highly detailed explanation of how the collapse happened. This explanation is peer-reviewed and widely accepted among the engineering community.
3. Several "scholars", among them a physicist and an electrical engineer, come up with competing theories about what happened that disagree with the original. They are not peer reviewed and leave many questions unanswered (such as how molten metal is evidence of fast-burning incendiary devices used weeks before).
4. This is accepted as evidence that the US government murdered thousands of its own people as an excuse to start a war.

Why would you reject the conclusions of the experts and happily embrace those of a few fringe academics? And how are you able to identify a specific culprit from these conclusions?

John White
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

Quote:

How are you able to identify a specific culprit from these conclusions?

Thats what your doing: you call him Osama Bin Laden, based on a conclusion projected by the media 1 hour after the event

As much as critics keep striving to do their own projection onto the campaign, we do not say that:

We say the evidance not supporting the Official Story warrents a new investigation empowered to get at the facts

We do not have to prove what happened or declare who is guilty: the campaign is valid based on raising reasonable doubt

That does not invalidate considering speculative scenarios: by considering alternate perspectives we asses the credibility of those scenarios on the basis of wether they are supportive of the call for a new investigation as raising reasonable doubt: with a fair few solid facts being exposed along the way

Will any critic now deny the 9/11 Commission was whitewashed following the exposure of procedings by the Jersey Girls?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject:

Quote:

How about just one more round.

Ok. This show could run and run.

Quote:

What if a team of doctors examined the man and said they were axe wounds, while a highly qualified entymologist looked at a grainly photo and said, no, they were made by a hammer. Would you automatically assume the doctors are lying, and therefore YOU must have poisoned him?

Not automatically.
It would depend whether the entymologist was able to give a compelling case as to whether the blows were made with a hammer (I know what you'd say to that!). If there was established doubt, it might be reasonable to study any other photos or get hold of the high def pathologists photos. You'd at least expect the doctors to publish a full coroners report without having to be harassed by the axeman's victims.

Quote:

1. Planes ran into the buildings, the building caught fire and fell down.

Nobody disagrees with each individual assertion there.

Quote:

2. Highly qualified structural engineers examined the evidence and came out with a highly detailed explanation of how the collapse happened. This explanation is peer-reviewed and widely accepted among the engineering community.

Academic credentials and 'expertise' do not, in themselves, assure valid conclusions. Today, the exhaust pipe on my car started blowing badly. I have to trust the expertise of my local garage to identify and fix the problem as my knowledge of motor vehicles is negligable. Should I be bothered to teach myself more, I'd argue the toss if I thought they were making the wrong judgements. I have to trust experts on a variety of matters. However, that doesn't make them Gods.
Some experts might never be prepared to contradict the official line because of fear of the consequences (however bad you consider the work of Steven Jones to be, he'd have been crucified whatever he said) - accusing the government of mass murder is somewhat 'controversial' and it'd take a bold engineer from some college or other to stand up and say them towers was blowed up. I'm NOT making a pronouncement like "oh yeah, they're just too SCARED to TELL THE TRUTH". That's an unevidenced presumption. But the consequences of 'speaking out' could certainly be uncomfortable.
I don't know how many engineers have studied it very closely; you'd think it'd be of interest because it is an unusual thing to happen; it's not every day buildings that size 'fall down', but on the other hand you might not scrutinise the results that closely if you feel it's all 'sorted'. Unless you post in 'critics corner'.
I don't trust experts simply because they're experts. To choose a field I know, I'm no doctor but I can think of loads of tenets that are widely accepted among the psychiatric community, many of which I consider to be nonsense. In fact, until about 1973 (about then was when it disappeared from the DSM I think) the experts (peer reviewed and everything) thought homosexuality was a mental illness (not to mention was was previously thought about 'wanton' women...) That's 'medical science' for you. Try arguing that outside of fundamentalist religion (and possibly the Daily Mail) now. Expert consensus can be wrong.
Besides, is there a consensus anyway? I thought NIST contradicted FEMA. And hasn't there been several collapse theories anyway? Even if there were no explosives, is anyone 100% sure about how the collapse happened anyway?
It's on 'the facts'
Very Happy

Quote:

3. Several "scholars", among them a physicist and an electrical engineer, come up with competing theories about what happened that disagree with the original. They are not peer reviewed and leave many questions unanswered (such as how molten metal is evidence of fast-burning incendiary devices used weeks before).

Did Jones try to get mainstream peer review? I'm not sure. If he didn't, I agree that was foolish. I'd wonder if any mainstream journal would touch the very idea with a barge pole.
If it's flawed, it's flawed. It should be critiqued. I really do think that if it really were the case wtc was detonated, it would be unlikely Jones had the means bang on the money. There are officially acknowledged questions over exactly how wtc7 collapsed (we're still waiting for the definitive report aren't we?), but you'd be quick to point out that doesn't necessarily mean it was imploded. It's a hypothesis which may well be wrong. I really think the truth movement should exercise more caution over his paper and wait to see if it pans out before getting too excited. If he's wrong, it doesn't blow the whole truth movement on the basis of a flawed paper. I don't think he has ever said "that's it, case closed, no more to say". Ironically, it may be truth movement's willingness to trust an 'expert' that ends up being a bit of a mistake.

Quote:

This is accepted as evidence that the US government murdered thousands of its own people as an excuse to start a war.

Well, a piece of evidence, not the evidence, surely? This thermite thing is a fairly recent slice of the truth movement. It would prove things were a bit amiss if it stood, though.
I do think there's some decent evidence they wanted a war (they always do...). That doesn't prove they made it happen, just there are lots of other avenues of enquiry.

Quote:

Why would you reject the conclusions of the experts and happily embrace those of a few fringe academics?

Well, from the point of view of the movement, It's up to those within it to judge which conclusions they feel are right. As I've said, I don't think the fact that it's experts vs fringe academics means the game's over before it's started. Do you always simply assume the 'experts' are right?

Look, I totally support the truth movement for refusing to take what they're told at face value. Questioning what you're told by experts is very healthy in my book. Personally, I think something does stink about 911 (and 7/7), but I would also say that caution needs to be exercised in making bold proclamations about WHAT REALLY HAPPENDED.

I respect people like you for having the gumption to swot up on it and argue your corner because you're thinking for yourself about it and putting forward your own ideas. Perhaps ironically, your're quite valuable to the truth movement for keeping it on its toes.

Quote:

And how are you able to identify a specific culprit from these conclusions?

From the twin towers, you simply can't. You could only establish the virtual certainty it wasn't simply the hijackers. You can speculate as to the probable culprits but, lets face it, if Donald Rumsfield was in it up to his neck he wouldn't have written about it in his diary. Surely the goals of the truth movement are satisfied by proving an 'inside job'. Should that be achieved, what would happen is anyone's guess.

I wouldn't worry about - when the s*it hits the fan, you'll be on the BLUE list. Very Happy

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject:

wobbler wrote:

Academic credentials and 'expertise' do not, in themselves, assure valid conclusions.

That's why peer review exists. That's why I tend to give peer-reviewed studies/papers more weight than those that are not.

If I REALLY wanted to be sure, I could go back to college and get the same degree as the person presenting the idea; only then would I be qualified to judge it fairly. Since we can't do that, we rely on tried and tested tools like the scientific method, with it's strict rules of conduct and self-correcting mechanisms.

Quote:

I don't trust experts simply because they're experts. To choose a field I know, I'm no doctor but I can think of loads of tenets that are widely accepted among the psychiatric community, many of which I consider to be nonsense. In fact, until about 1973 (about then was when it disappeared from the DSM I think) the experts (peer reviewed and everything) thought homosexuality was a mental illness (not to mention was was previously thought about 'wanton' women...) That's 'medical science' for you. Try arguing that outside of fundamentalist religion (and possibly the Daily Mail) now. Expert consensus can be wrong.

So-called "soft" sciences like psychiatry have a much broader margin of error than things like physics or structural engineering. These "hard" sciences make accurate predictions and provide useful explanations of how things work. If a structural engineer is wrong, then you know it right away -- his creations fail to work as they're designed. The engineering trade has had thousands of years to work things out, so you don't have too many major blunders. However, if you were dead wrong in psychiatry...how would you know?

If the ideas of, say, Dr. Jones were useful and made accurate predictions, then it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that a vertical steel column can be efficiently and economically severed using thermate. No one has been able to do this.

Quote:

Besides, is there a consensus anyway? I thought NIST contradicted FEMA. And hasn't there been several collapse theories anyway? Even if there were no explosives, is anyone 100% sure about how the collapse happened anyway?

There is no way to be 100% sure about the details, but the major points would not be in dispute. For instance, no one is going to say the Towers collapsed "bottom up" when it is clear from looking at the footage that it went "top down". That much is obvious, but the more knowledge an expert has, the more he can be sure about more subtle details that seem mysterious to the rest of us.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum