Bombings at the Boston Marathon

There are theories about this but I'm not interested in them. I am only interested in the fact that a large number of highly qualified experts in various fields say the official report into the collapse of the WTC towers is wrong based on hard evidence. 

I agree about the aliens. Maybe they confuse rectums with black holes? 

Trailer park trash or Olympic Gold medalist - are aliens as bright as we think? 

And thus - the aliens among us give themselves away.

I knew I should have rephrased that. 

Cool, if thats the case, please provide some.

If any of the people you show are wearing tinfoil hats / woad / cats, I'll be totally unsurprised.

There are no such videos. You are deluded.

There are no such reports. Only people saying there are. No experts have said any such thing.

TMP,

 Refusing to watch the film and saying there are no reports, no arguments and no experts is like a child hiding behind it's hands believing no one can see him. I am not going to repeat myself. 

You don't have to repeat yourself.

Wasting two hours watching some nutjob film saying the moon is made of green cheese does not mean the moon is made of green cheese. It just means its a nutjob film, and wastes two hours.

Wasting two hours watching some nutjob film saying the WTC was blown up by ( special silent ) explosives that where teleported into the building ( obviously how they avoided the rather tight security ) does not mean the WTC was blown up by explosives, it just means its a nutjob film and wastes two hours.

You don't have to repeat yourself at all; just show one credible source saying they heard the explosions, and the report of the 1200 / 1900 / 2000 / 100000000000 architects saying the WTC could not possibly have been brought down by fire caused by an aircraft.

I'm sure you've been asked to do this before. 

For some reason, you don't seem to have done this.

This has been a very tedious (off the subject) 911 Marathon. Is the finish line anywhere in sight?

Feel free to bring the subject back on track, Haim.

To Sniper - don't bother. I've decided that you're right.

Honest.

Yet you are happy to waste countless hours here on this thread arguing your position without any in-depth knowledge or being an expert on all matters structural etc. yourself. Moreover, I dare say whatever knowledge you have of explosives it is likely to be irrelevant in this case anyways. 

Ridiculing posts here on this thread serves no one and it certainly does not help in understanding what actually happened. Ridiculing is a fool's way of trying to discredit what may in fact be true. As Arthur Schopenhauer aptly pointed out "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". That was a couple of hundred years ago and nothing has changed in that regard since.

There are those within society who will always believe official versions, who trust in their governments as the guardians of social order and the wellbeing of society at large, who look upon large corporates as success stories and big banks as legitimate and legal organisations, when it is well documented that many have been involved in criminal activities and at times to an unbelievable degree. The list of examples are endless.  

Then there are those who don't blindly follow what is fed to them and who question official versions, people who look beneath the surface and dig up the filth that is going on in this world, sometimes at the expense of their own personal well being. They aren't convenient to get along with and they're certainly not good for business, yet they are the ones who change the world for the better. They are the real custodians of society, if you like.

Ultimately no one here is in a position to demonstrate whether 9/11 was an inside job or not. However, to dismiss it without looking at the various positions and consider the views and evidence brought forward by people who clearly have a strong understanding of the relevant fields is downright ignorant to say the least. And to think that it couldn't have happened is naive to the extreme.

If you are not willing to watch that film, just don't comment.

And yet -

just because a thing is ridiculed it doesn't make it true. It really doesn't.

*Could you give me the reference for this?

I tried to put it into context and found this - http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/l/law3.htm

"It is extremely popular, quoted in many newspaper articles and Internet web sites, and is proffered in support of discredited claims about acupuncture, repressed memory, Holocaust denial, or the dangers of vaccination."

I've asked Sniper, and various other tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists to show some credible proof of the theory behind the conspiracy.

Nobody has been able to do so.

I've asked them to show some links of people saying they heard explosions - guess what? Nobody has been able t do so.

I've asked that the comment from 1200 / 1900 / 2000 "professionals" be shown - which seems to be a tad tricky.

I've posted half a dozen different links that simply nuke the 9/11 conspiracy, all of which seems to have been ignored. I've asked how these special silent explosives had been sneaked past the tight security in the WTC, but this has also been ignored. I'd also like to commend the bombers because nobody has actually said they did it, and nobody has been brought to trail.

Odd, that.

As interesting as Schopenhauer's comment may be, it is based on "truth", not lunacy. 

As Marx said, "If it looks like a duck, walks like  duck and goes quack, its a duck".

I'll comment about the proponents of these lunatic theories next post. Should you have *any* credible evidence outside of two hours of film ( I note all you've done is criticise me, not argue for the conspiracists) then please show it.

According to a 2011 analysis in a Skeptical Inquirer's article people involved in this movement, which seemingly is a disparate group with very diversified backgrounds, could be classified into three groups. They join the movement for different reasons, loosely self-assemble to fill different roles and are united by their shared mistrust in experts and the establishment (government and reputable sources of knowledge), and conspiratorial stance. Through their engagement, they each find their own fulfillment and satisfaction. Together, they contribute to the persistence, resilience and exaggerated claims of acceptance (in general public) of the movement. These three groups are:

• Hard Core: The organizers and active members of the various 9/11 Truth Movement organizations. They produce the information, spot the anomalies and technical inconsistencies, provide the technical base and form the theories. While they claim to be only interested in facts and to use scientific method, they commit the logical fallacy of ‘confirmation bias’ by pre-determining the outcome, then searching for corroborating evidence while ignoring the vast body of peer-reviewed, independent, consensual research which contradict their theories. They supply the physical structure of the movement by organizing events, seminars, discussions, marches and distributing flyers and pamphlets. Their numbers are relatively small but they are tight-knit and highly connected. Their worldview favors ‘super-conspiracy’, a master plan that is behind conspiracies which they believe they are uncovering.
• Critically turned: They are the young students and political activists whose affiliation with the 9/11 Truth Movement often is rooted from their dissatisfaction and anger at the established political and social order. Their sense of justice and idealism propels them to activism against perceived oppression and social injustice. Their penchant to use Internet, especially social media and tech savvy make them the propaganda machine for the movement. They produce YouTube video and films with cool, countercultural content, make good use of pop culture parody and eye-catching graphics. The countercultural street cred of their productions buy them broad appeal and exposure to millions of people.^[
• Illiterati: They are the movement’s mass membership backbone, a large, diffuse group which give the movement exaggerated claims of popularity and influence. Participation in the 9/11 Truth Movement, to this group of people, is as much a social and recreational pursuit as the quest for truth. Their partaking is mostly through web 2.0 social networking and hits on the YouTube video. Their commentaries often are emotional and they make no pretense to be accurate, balanced or to show genuine intent to find truth. Involvement with the movement that fit their worldview gives them a sense of identity and belonging, which they find more appealing than the facts and evidences of the 9/11 terrorist attack itself.

Actually, I'm not claiming any knowledge about structural engineering at all.

I know a little bit about explosives, which haven't changed much in the last 20-30 years, but I can spot lunatic theories when I see one.

Or - possibly not.

David Hume did*, however, say:

"This contrariety of evidence, in the present case, may be derived from several different causes; from the opposition of contrary testimony; from the character or number of the witnesses; from the manner of their delivering their testimony; or from the union of all these circumstances. We entertain a suspicion concerning any matter of fact, when the witnesses contradict each other; when they are but few, or of a doubtful character; when they have an interest in what they affirm; when they deliver their testimony with hesitation, or on the contrary, with too violent asseverations. There are many other particulars of the same kind, which may diminish or destroy the force of any argument, derived from human testimony.
 
Suppose, for instance, that the fact, which the testimony endeavours to establish, partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous; in that case, the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive à priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force, which remains. The very same principle of experience, which gives us a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses, gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance against the fact, which they endeavour to establish; from which contradiction there necessarily arises a counterpoize, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.
 
'I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato', was a proverbial saying in Rome, even during the lifetime of that philosophical patriot. The incredibility of a fact, it was allowed, might invalidate so great an authority."

*An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - On Miracles.

Not that one need be influenced by his opinion.

PS - its also worth noting that the WTC collapse is the only example in the history of history  which  was engineered to start from the top.

Every other demolition sees the explosions at the bottom of the structure.

Funny, that.

TMP,

By and large people believe what they want to believe (or so I believe) and they use their intellect (for want of a better word) to justify what is fundamentally an emotional belief or need. Cherry picking and embracing certain 'evidence' whilst ignoring contradictory evidence is common. Even scientists do this. Of course you don't do this. 

The cognitive dissonance involved in most religious belief is so overwhelming that even truly intelligent people torture their brains in a deluded attempt to wriggle free from what other less intelligent but less emotionally involved people see as blindingly obvious. Some people go to enormous lengths to confirm their own prejudices. Some even devote their whole lives to it. Of course you don't do this.

You and Don Atkinson and the great democratic governments of the world stand as the heroic last bulwark against a rising tide of nut jobs, nutjobs who are university professors, scientists and professionally qualified architects with 30 and even 40 years experience . All is well with the world then. We can sleep more easily. Lower middle class English men sit in their lower middle class homes with their Naim gear and think the world is a civilized place full of integrity and order and fairness. The Daily Mail tells it how it is and we can sit in our armchairs and feel smug. We know more than 2,000 experts because we, the great brains of this day or any other day have a small knowledge of explosives gained on a grenade range at a UK army training depot. 

Well I could knock up an IED quicker than you could whip up an omelette but I would never assume I knew more about explosives than people who make a living by demolishing high rise buildings or by lecturing in chemistry or physics at world renowned universities. That would be foolish and arrogant. 

As a weekend warrior who has lost friends in Afghanistan you have a need to believe the British and Americans are fighting a just war against terrorism as the thought of being mere canon fodder used to maintain the government's monopoly on violence and obtain lots of lovely oil to support collapsing economies caused by corrupt banks is simply disconsonant to your view of yourself as a hero who potentially puts his life on the line for the sake of freedom and justice (and a largely ungrateful public) but In reality you are working for banks, banks who don't care about you or anyone else. Banks cause booms and banks cause bust. They get richer and the poor get poorer. They control governments who in turn control the military and you are but a tiny and insignificant speck in an overwhelming process you don't understand at all. 

That is why you believe what you believe. That is why you have ignored the many answers to your questions and that is why you won't watch the film. 

You can not ignore a film on the one hand whilst defending or promoting a rebuttal on the other. You have to identify that which is to be refuted first - only then can to attempt to refute it. How many times on this forum have you witnessed people accusing someone of saying something which in fact was not said at all? It is a tediously common tactic employed by the unscrupulous. 

Watch the effing film first. 

I won't argue with a fool (to paraphrase mark Twain or some other author Adam will dig up) as I will only lower myself to your level whereupon you will beat me with your overwhelming experience. 

Totemphile, 

Well said. A voice of reason at last. 

I've ignored the childish ad hom, but can you show us some of these fascinating reports that seem so very central to your theory?

The actual reports, that is, not some people talking about the reports.

That would be foolish and arrogant.

There are two reasons why I won't watch the film.

1. Its two hours and frankly, I've better things to do with my time.

2. Its premise is patently rubbish.