posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:48 AM
There are a few issues here that keep us from being empirically grounded.
The most minor of these is the attitude and tone of the people who post. Please don't take this as an ad hominem attack, but it makes the average
processual thinker shy away. When you say "look at these squibs" and show a picture of the World Trade Center, it shows that you have already biased
yourself and therefore lack an objective view point. A bias is not a bad thing, after all it is your point of view. But if the object is elucidation
of the facts, perhaps rhetorical devices as such should be avoided. The use of that makes me personally feel that you are trying to sway people to
your argument, and not to present an objective case for our evaluation.
Also someone said their father was a physicist, this might be a non related off the cuff comment, but put into this context where physicist could
enlighten the reader on more facts about the WTC attacks it could be construed an appeal to authority fallacy. In the same way that I could say "my
mother is a psychologist" on a board dealing with depression. While I might know more about the field than the average person it's not my personal
field of study and therefore my opinions might or might not be more valid than anyone else’s and should be taken as such. Even if my attempt was to
make conjecture appear as valid fact (again I am NOT saying that was your intent, but only to be cautious).
The second flaw is testing, we have no way to test how massive skyscrapers fall under different circumstances (e.g. what a natural collapse looks like
versus what happens when a steel loses strength in a hot fire and cannot support the weight above it). I'm not purposing that the knowledge is
unobtainable, but I am suggesting that analogy from accidental fires feeding on normal fuels leading to smaller structure collapse is NOT comparable
to fuel laden aircraft being flow at high speeds into skyscrapers.
One last thing, regarding the topic: have you ever seen the discovery channel show about the building demolition company? They spend weeks prepping a
building, and the ones on that show are significantly smaller in scale. They don't just throw some explosives into the building set them off and hope
for the best. They cut support beams throughout the building. I'm telling you this because to me it seem likely that someone working in the World
Trade Center would have noticed and reported these beams being cut and massive amounts of explosives being installed throughout the buildings. So my
proposal is this: find out the numbers of the floors on which these "blasts" occur, and then see what offices were on these floors. If in most cases
those floors didn't contain offices or contained significantly less offices than surrounding floor, then based on fact your argument could gain some
My personal opinion (bias) is that terrorists flew these planes into the WTC, which in turn caused the buildings to collapse. Just so you know where I