ignore this. its silly.

Read it. (click that link, then click on the title of the .pdf to load)

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “ignore this. its silly.

  1. Uh dave, I think you’re wandering into conspiracy theory land. I spent a day (that I can’t get back) looking at the evidence for/against (watched the loose change video, etc…). And decided most of the stuff was bunk.

    Responding to the points in the pdf you sent:

    From the introduction section

    A. Explosive demolition pretty roundly handled by http://mondediplo.com/2006/12/02dconspiracy

    B. WTC7 “symmetry” and all that: Just because it looks the same as a demolition doesn’t mean it is the same. To start with you should be comparing it with your null hypothesis (i.e. that it collapsed just due to fire, need to set fire to a building built in the same design as WTC7). Arguably there should be an investigation into why a building collapsed so easily – suggesting design flaws? (and there was http://wtc.nist.gov/ )

    C. Plumes of dust (already covered by point 1)- but I’d /expect/ there to be some dust coming out as the air/stuff inside gets compressed!

    From the ‘thirteen reasons’:

    1. molten metal, the metal is expected to be glowing – it got to 1000 deg C according to NIST. The points that molten metal was found: “molten metal which was still red hot” – it would be brighter than ‘red’ if it was in fact liquid. “Fuchek” said it would be dripping – could this be exaggeration? And Sarah Atlas said that it “flowed in the ruins” – almost certainly exaggeration as it wasn’t visible in the videos the pdf links to. No video or photo shows liquid metal – just very soft metal – as expected. There might be some other metals there (eg from filing cabinets, the plane, all the other metal stuff in a building.

    The thing about the white flames – NIST put it down to combustion of aluminium. The pdf you linked to says it also looks like thermite – so? It doesn’t disprove the null hypothesis again!

    The metal dripping from the collision site: He doesn’t say why it can’t just be aluminium from the plane.

    Organey flame – could be mixed with other combustion – seems very likely?

    tbh, I’ve kind of lost interest at this point… conspiracy theories are generally the same, they can be taken apart with effort, but people are too lazy to check them out.

  2. Alright, maybe only kooks like me should be reading that document. Everybody else should engage in positive political action.

    Thanks for the Le Monde’s look at conspiracy theories, really good article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s