Bono's Comments on Terrorism

[diamond]

Originally posted by Diemen



Why do you think that hasn't happened yet?

Moreover, why wouldn't enemies of Bush simply pounce all over this if even a small portion of this were true?

Why wouldn't somebdy like George Tenet come forward and be the world's largest whistle blower?

Nobody with any real cred has came forward, only enemies of Bush and/or 2nd rate celebs like Rosie, Charlie Sheen and a few others.

The collapse of Tower 7 does raise a few questions though.

dbs

[phillyfan26]

I tend to agree here. There's so much animosity towards Bush (deservedly so, but still) that if there was any legitimacy whatsoever, this would be taken seriously. But it's not, because it's all completely ridiculous.

[martha]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Why an alias of course.

I hadn't thought of that.

[Teta040]

Well, I may as well go back to lurking.

Thanks to anybody who replied to my ON-TOPIC post...

[bofors]

Originally posted by melon
As I stated before, the WTC towers were such a fundamentally different paradigm in architecture that you cannot compare these towers to any conventional steel structure.

This is true but you seem to be missing is that the Twin Towers changed the style of architecture, skyscrapers that followed where built with a similiar design.

Architect Richard Gage covers these issues near the beginning of "Blueprint for Truth: How the Towers Fell":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874

The WTC towers were designed quite differently by having the structures supported by the exterior, rather than the interior.

This is a false myth promoted by some deliberately misleading mainstrean 9/11 documentaries (PBS-NOVA, BBC).

The truth is that the Twin Towers had an intense core structure of 47 columns.

You can see four cranes resting on the strong core structure during construction here:



Here is one of the massive core columns:



See these sites for more details on the WTC cores:
http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtc-core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

The scientific method, so to say, demands that one "puts up or shuts up."

This is what we should be asking the government to do. So far it has failed to produce any explanation for why the Twin Towers collapsed straight down, without tipping over, at nearly free fall speed. It very unscientifically refuses to even consider the only plausible explanation for this, controlled demolition.

Instead, the goverment relies on a nonsensical "global collapse" scenerio postulated by Bazant that requires two floors of columns to magically disappear and even this is still only an initiation of collapse. The numerous problems with the government's inverstigation and lack of conclusion are detailed here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...FAQ_reply.html

On Video by former Underwriter Laboratories (UL) manager Kevin Ryan here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...36659434732032

Morever, we can see the government (NIST) outright lying about the existance of molten metal at "ground zero" here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501

Finally, the government has failed to provide any explanation of "collapse" of WTC 7, in what is obviously a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62504721899003

[bofors]

Originally posted by diamond
Nobody with any real cred has came forward, only enemies of Bush and/or 2nd rate celebs like Rosie, Charlie Sheen and a few others.

216 Architects & Engineers named with credentials here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

190 Suvivors & Family members here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

170 Professors here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

110 Goverment officials here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

60 Pilots here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

7 CIA veterans here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...veterans_c.htm

FBI translator/ Sibel Edmonds here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/11521

[BVS]

You still haven't produced how credible these "experts" are, nor have you really answered many of the hard questions asked of you. Explain to me how this was a controled demolition, that used an EXPLOSION from the top...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by bofors
216 Architects & Engineers named with credentials here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

190 Suvivors & Family members here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

170 Professors here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

110 Goverment officials here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

60 Pilots here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

7 CIA veterans here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...veterans_c.htm

FBI translator/ Sibel Edmonds here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/11521

1. What are the credentials of each person?
2. What is the expertise of each person?
3. How does one define "endorsing?"

And you really skipped most of Melon's post.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by bofors
This is what we should be asking the government to do.

No, he asked YOU to, and you have deliberately unanswered a majority of his points. Specifically, from this post:

Originally posted by melon Those buildings were only mentioned as examples of the existence of "progressive collapse" as a phenomenon. As I stated before, the WTC towers were such a fundamentally different paradigm in architecture that you cannot compare these towers to any conventional steel structure. In fact, the WTC towers upset some prominent modernists so much that they literally killed themselves over it.

The WTC towers were designed quite differently by having the structures supported by the exterior, rather than the interior. For this reason alone, this is why a plane crashing into a conventionally-built skyscraper like the Empire State Building would, at most, have only led to the potential collapse of the floors above the impact zone.

This conventional theory of collapse is what bin Laden counted on:



His "experience in this field" is a likely reference to the fact that the bin Laden family is known as being a highly successful construction company in Saudi Arabia.

It is this fundamental difference between conventional skyscraper architecture and the postmodern departure of the WTC that likely drives this conspiracy. Yet, for reasons that I have explained, such a collapse is to be expected in the WTC towers, due to the unconvential sacrifice of form over function.



Yes, the WTC towers would have been engineered to withstand airplane impacts...according to early 1970s standards.





Do take note of one word there: "inerrantly." A study of documentary films reveals heavy controversy in the nature of what constitutes "bias," even inadvertent. Choosing to edit your video, you are making a "bias" as to what's important--and, more importantly, as to what's not important. Can that bias be trusted?

Take your animated GIF there for a moment, and let's look at it like a filmmaker. A documentary filmmaker would see the "bias" in the fact that that shot was framed in a way that 3/4 of the building is covered, and, as such, is unreliable, because of what it does not show--the bottom 3/4 of the building. It would also "not show" the events like described by the firefighter interview. You are basically demanding that we make a judgment in your favor on the basis of approximately five seconds, whereas you willfully disregard the substantial evidence to the contrary.



No. There's your logical fallacy right there. This kind of argument would state that you cannot defend science, because one is not a scientist.

But here's what I'm telling you. The scientific method, so to say, demands that one "puts up or shuts up." That is, intelligent design is not on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution, just because it "says" it has value. Likewise, these conspiracy theories cannot demand equal footing, without surviving substantial scientific review. Lumping together a bunch of ideologically convenient statements with a bunch of fringe scientists or academics is exactly what "intelligent design" is, and that's exactly what kind of crap you're spouting here.

Again, with your scientific doctoral credentials, it should be no problem to author a vigorously researched scientific paper for peer review, if "all the evidence is in your favor" like you believe.

So I'm telling you right now:

Put up or shut up.

Until then, science demands that we stick with the current body of scientists and academics, who believe that the WTC towers were destroyed, due to terrorist attacks. I do not have to be a scientist to uphold science. The burden is on you to construct the kind of evidence that will survive scientific and logical scrutiny. Lucky for you, your doctorate gives you that such power. You'll either turn out to be a hero or a laughing stock.

So what will it be?

Care to address his point on scientific bias?

Here's my biggest problem with this whole conspiracy theory thing: it was NOT created because evidence was there. It was created because people saw motive (and even that angle is total bullshit too!). Then, they went back and tried to find evidence to back it up, and they are clinging to little random things that don't add up. They ignore the time and complexity that a controlled demolition would require. They ignore the fact that it would be impossible to line a building CONSTANTLY BEING USED with explosives without people noticing. It would be completely and utterly impossible. 24 hours a day, that building was in use. You think people working their would not have noticed if they were putting fucking explosives all over the building? Bullshit.

Now, instead of going back to whining about the government, address Melon's points and do what Melon said:

Put up or shut up.

[Diemen]

This is getting ridiculous, and is a huge derail from the thread's subject. Can we just split this conspiracy stuff into it's own thread?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by bofors


You have a poor understanding of how science really works. First of all, scientists almost systemically avoid controversy. People who have spoken out, like Prof. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have lost their jobs. In short, people are afraid to speak out. For example, I have not exactly recieved a warm welcome here.

Moreover, the US government is not exactly passing out grants to disprove their official 9/11 story. Exactly the opposite is true.

That might fit for the US, but why should scientists around the globe stay quiet?

[melon]

Originally posted by bofors
This is true but you seem to be missing is that the Twin Towers changed the style of architecture, skyscrapers that followed where built with a similiar design.

The impression I'm getting here is that we're now playing a game of "theoretical physics," rather than any true physical evidence of a conspiracy. And so now we're reduced to a game of tit for tat.

Admittedly, it would not hurt my feelings if this conspiracy was proven, just as much as my feelings would not be hurt if the HIV deniers or intelligent design people had hard science to prove their case.

You see, though, the key here is "hard science." If you sincerely believe what you believe is true, then you have to come up with the hard science to back it up. There is no alternative in the marketplace of ideas. Every new hypothesis in science borders on either genius or lunacy, and there has been a few instances where that crazy mad scientist has come up with so much evidence that the scientific community has no choice but to believe him.

It is my opinion, based on logic and historical patterns, that this path towards conspiracy is as foolish and false as any pattern of conspiracies dating back towards the Middle Ages and probably earlier (Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" is a novel that I'd highly recommend). As you can see with intelligent design, HIV deniers, or the Religious Right anti-gay quackery organizations, anything can be given a facade of "professionalism." Throw in an ideology and some ideas, then all you have to do is find some people with fancy titles to give it automatic credibility, even if it is unwarranted.

Ultimately, you can do and believe as you wish, of course, but if you expect us to believe this stuff, one will have to do better than this, because this kind of "science" resembles that same kind of quackery I'd expect from your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory. Hence, I implore you to go the extra step in your homework, or abandon this folly entirely. Any "victory" here would certainly be Pyrrhic.