Atheist:
I have already mentioned in this thread that the pro-official story material out there has proved to be much stronger than I originally thought (I actually linked to 911myths at one point). I’ve re-examined my beliefs with regard 911 and, although I’m not yet in favour of the official theory, I am much less certain with regards what happened. But back to the specifics:
re: the collapses
I accept the analysis of the “squibs” and, to some degree, the points you make with regard concrete pulverisation. That video footage does seem to suggest the expulsions were caused by air pressure, and I’m not sure what happens when you drop concrete from that kind of height.
But at the end of the day the key features of the collapse still don’t add up for me. I know you are claiming they were slower than freefall, but they were still exceptionally fast collapses. In addition to that, they followed the path of most resistance. And, of course, they were total. I have since seen a documentary about a small group of survivors who emerged from the rubble, and they were mentioning that some of the support beams were cut (the show was in no way related to the conspiracy theories though).
So the collapses are still suspicious to me. But I take your points on board. I realise now that some of the evidence conspiracy theorists use is not as strong as it first appears to be.
I’ve recently flown for the first time and the experience added to my scepticism with regard the efficiency with which the hijackers hit their targets.
Basically my stance here has shifted from “9/11 was an inside job… and I have the proof!!” to “9/11 smells incredibly fishy to me… but proof is hard to come by”
Your interpretation of the “squibs” I can possibly go with, but there would have been huge resistance to the falling floors from the undamaged lower floors.
To be honest I’m sceptical of the whole thing, the point of how the planes were caused to impact the buildings.
Anyway, it’s a big patchwork because, as I’m British, I’m following the British counter-terrosism situation very closely. One overlap is with regard the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI?). One terrorism suspect here in the uk alleges that they have been setting up training facilities for terrorists, and he has ceased answering questions about them due to possible danger to his family. The connection to 9/11? The Pakistani ISI (or someone associated) wired money to Mo Atta pre-911. This is on record, excuse lack of citation. And yet there is no attack on Pakistan by the US.
While on the topic, do you have any arguments with regards the events pre-9/11 such as the above mentioned wiring of money?
I’m not stooping to the level of persisting with 911 conspiracy claims just because I don’t like the Bush administration, I do genuinely think there’s something wrong with the official version of 911. But you guys have certainly shown that my case is very hard to prove. Jesus, do you guys know that one of the main officers responsible for the Menenez shooting here in London recently got PROMOTION?
Sure, maybe you interpret conspiracy theories as social phenomenon, but with the kind of political goings-on we witness in the world today, I hardly think it surprising that people don’t trust their governments.
Well fine, but I linked to an interview with a very highly qualified guy in my last post, with much experience in a relevent field. I’m kinda tired right now so I’ll offer the cop-out answer that I feel intuitively that there is something wrong with the collapses.
And this is flat-out incorrect (as far as I’m aware). The only footage of the first impact itself was picked up by that documentary crew following the NY firefighters that day. It wasnt aired until the next day. The second impact was caught from many angles and was replayed over and over and over, but obviously the first one caught the media by surprise. The footage only made it out the next day.
But there may be some decent explanation for Bush’s statement. Silverstein’s statement is certainly far from the confession I first thought it was. I mean fair play to you official story guys, you’ve got some strong stuff, and we conspiracy nuts will certainly have to raise our game to stay in this.
And I’m not mindlessly clinging to the conspiracy side here, I’ve given this a lot of thought lately… and although, once again, I have to say I’m very impressed with the material you’ve presented, it still doesnt persuade me.
Definitely on the backfoot though.