Confucius

I think that photo's tampered with...

Confucius

We were watching Al Jazeera footage from West Bank/Gaza Strip...People were full of joy and handing out cookies...

Eva

Arbroath kipper,
Did it affect you more than John Hamilton?

Eeyore

Go on then: explain, in full, using the proper physics and supported with scientifically-valid cites, why it shouldn't have collapsed the way it did.

And then - assuming you subscribe to the "controlled demolition" theory - explain how it was possible to wire both towers up with enough explosives to demolish them completely without it being discovered beforehand.

Actually, on second thoughts, don't bother. There's enough ill-informed paranoid bollocks on the internet already.

arbroath_abroad

shock horror, gareth and AA in total agreeance....

arbroath_abroad

Who is John Hamilton?

arbroath_abroad

Eva

Hi Eeyore,

Never spoken to you before-but.........
Can you just not let people reflect and speak without needing a scientific definintion.Like PI..........its going on forever .............

Eva

24 kids in Central Scotland ......went to school one day in Dunblane

Eeyore

scarletfan's post relates directly to the physics of collapsing buildings. S/he was asking us to ponder why the towers collapsed they way they did - we're supposed to doubt, to assume that there was something fishy about it.

If they shouldn't have collapsed the way they did, why not? How *should* they have collapsed? There's absolutely no way to answer that without discussing the physics involved, the means and materials that were used in the construction of the towers, etc.

Does scarletfan actually understand any of that, or is s/he just repeating one of those ill-informed Flash animations about "unanswered 9/11 questions" that litter the internet? I would imagine the latter, because if you only bother to look, you'll find proper scientific explanations for absolutely every aspect of the tower collapses, and absolutely no explanations, scientific or otherwise, to back up any of the conspiracy theories.

scarletfan

Eeyore, I have absolutely no interest in posting any theories on here, purely interested in people's views on the subject. I work in construction, civil engineering to be exact and have been involved in demolition of bridges, tower blocks etc etc, not to mention construction of numerous structures, and this is a subject that has been discussed numerous times between colleagues from all over the world. I may have my theory, you may have yours, and be that what it may, we must never lose sight of the many lives that were lost that day, irrespective of either our personal or professional views. At the same time, we have to admit that this will be a topic of discussion for years. Some people would like to discuss it, others would not. We are all entitled to our opinions and lively debate on any subject matter.

Eva

Your prose is commendable until you presume
You cannot begin to tell how the suffering feel or how the masses work out a
scenario they think is worthy-Were you in Paris recently? Did you marche to call in a decent pension?

Eeyore

You quite clearly intended people to question the way the towers collapsed. But our opinions are completely worthless, given that none of us are experts in the construction of the towers, the effects of the impact, the stresses on the building at the time and the physics of collapsing buildings. And of course, there's the small fact that the proper, scientifically-valid explanation for the collapse has been in the public domain for years.

I don't have any theory, and I believe that anyone who tries to suggest that there was anything suspicious about the way the towers collapsed should put up or shut up.

Which is why it's important to be factual, and not propagate baseless conspiracy theories.

That's because people don't understand the concepts involved and prefer to believe exciting conspiracy theories over mundane scientific explanations.

In this particular case, we're not talking about abstract, intangible concepts open to personal interpretation - we're talking about matters of hard scientific fact. There are cold scientific reasons as to why the planes impacted the buildings two-thirds of the way up, and yet the entire buildings collapsed. You can prove this stuff on blackboards. There is empirical evidence for cause and effect.

If you believe the science is wrong, you have to explain why. If you can't, then your opinion is meaningless.

Eeyore

Eva, what the hell has any of that got to do with the hard scientific facts behind the collapse of the WTC towers?

arbroath_abroad

aye and that was not his name........

try Thomas Hamilton