The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Sorry i'd have to do more homework to provide that.
It's only my off-the-wall theory since i'm a nutcase conspiracy theorist right?

No, its your off-the-wall theory because by your own admission you'd have to actually do more research to see if it held water. I mean...seriously....its not a good sign when the first question asked of your reasoning prompts a response of "I'd need to check that up".

legologic wrote:

2005 the winchester building in madrid burns for 24 hours.

So well researched, you got the name wrong...eh? 'Salright...we know its an honest mistake.

Its the Windsor Tower in Madrid.

Interesting that you meniton it though. Have a read of this: http://911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

Whats that? The steel part of the building collapsed, while the concrete supports remained? Why, that could mean that if there was no concrete the whole thing would have probably collapsed. But I guess we'll both agree that this is an unfair presumption and its better to simply say its an inapplicable case.

Another honest mistake.

SpitfireIV

Bonkey, I think America needs you, seems there are many experts and scholars (sorry I dont have the exact numbers ), as well as a number of the public that have gotten the wrong idea and think there was some conspiracy behind 911 .

solas

lol, croppy boy, y'know bonkey is a politicians politician, it's their job to argue any point with conviction, doesn't mean they are right.

Untense

Manic Moran wrote:

Physics 101, as has already been explained in a previous thread. Please indicate to me the source of a force which would push the top of the building outwards, and not down.

Please bear in mind also that whilst the impact occured in one corner, the damage appears to have been spread around throughout the entire floor, witness the fireball emitting from all sides. Ergo, pretty much any part of the structure is vulnerable to being weakened by fire.

Wrong. Yes, the structures were an absolute marvel, actually they were designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 707's, which were the largest planes around at the time of the building of the Twin Towers. They were built to withhold against the possibility of multiple terrorist attacks using aircraft. The boeing 767 that hit were similar sized to the aircraft the building was capable of withstanding.

Interesting show on National Geographic channel last week, explaining how the unusual lattice cored structure of the WTC actually kept it up a lot longer than would have been expected of a conventionally designed skyscraper.

Yes but this wasn't a conventially designed skyscraper, it had 47 massive colums in the core, a design feature unique to the WTC's.

Frank d Martini was the chief engineer who designed the Towers, he reported that they were so resilient that an impact from an aircraft would be like
sticking a pencil in a mosquito net. The structure is an intense grid.


They are not mentioned in the 911 Commission Report, the 47 massive load-bearing columns in the center of the WTC's conveniently disappeared in the simulations used to make the Pancake Theory physically possible. Even if it were possible the cores should still have remained erect.

Instead the cores ended up getting cut up in to segments by an explosion, each segment roughly 30ft in length.

How convenient.


Tell me, why would the official US government explanation for the collapse of the WTC's purposefully omit the core load bearing features of the buildings?


Why do they fail to mention Tower number 7, a 47 story building, which was not hit by any planes and had neglible fires, and was the furthest building away from the Twin Towers.

Why did tower number 7 collapsed shortly after the other two towers in a similar, equally implausible way?



Did you even bother to research things for yourself before deciding you were right ?

civdef

Untense, honestly now, do you really truly think you have the inside track on this collapse that all the other structural/fire/architecture experts in the world have either missed or ignored?

Untense

Untense wrote:

The boeing 767 that hit were similar sized to the aircraft the building was capable of withstanding.

They flew a few into other similar tall structures to test this under,in as near an exact copy of the twin towers crashes right?

Frank d Martini was the chief engineer who designed the Towers, he reported that they were so resilient that an impact from an aircraft would be like
sticking a pencil in a mosquito net. The structure is an intense grid.

Ah yes,he had the confidence of the bulders and sailors of the titanic then.
Good man I admire confidence.

Untense

civdef wrote:

Untense, honestly now, do you really truly think you have the inside track on this collapse that all the other structural/fire/architecture experts in the world have either missed or ignored?

All the experts in the world ? You mean the people behind the 911 commission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Commission

Do you actually believe that just because the US release a report, that the worlds 'experts' wrote it ?

Do you not want to think for yourself?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm sure there are a growing number of experts in every field starting to come forward with their doubts. I thought exactly the same as everyone else until I started to do some research on the matter.

EDIT:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

There's another link for you to dismiss and huff about.

Dirk Gently

Any chance of this thread being closed seen as it has descended into one of the many similar threads on boards.

We've all seen the video, no sign of a plane, nothings changed. same people believe the official story same people think something else happened. Seen as there has being no new evidence either way the reason for this thread to exist has evaporated on viewing the dodgy video released yesterday.

Let the slagging match continue on another forum in one of the many other threads dedicated to slagging matches on this topic.

Untense

Happily.

I had to stand my case since people were passing me off as a 'nutjob'.


Finito

Dirk Gently

Untense wrote:

Happily.

I had to stand my case since people were passing me off as a 'nutjob'.


Finito

Understood,
but the video was announced, we speculated, we waited, we watched it and no new evidence came to light on viewing the video.

I have a lot of time for the alternative versions on 9/11 considering the official report is so lacking, but I feel there is enough threads in conspiracy theories and after hours to discuss these.

No new evidence has come from the video so this ends the necessity for this particular thread. No point in having different forums if everyone is used to discuss 9/11.
Maybe ask the admins for your own forum which is strictly related to all things to do with 9/11?

civdef

Do you not want to think for yourself?

It seems that unlike the conspiracy theorists here, I'm actually qualified to comment on some of the techinical issues here. This leads me to believe I've done more thinking on this subject for myself than people who are just repeating what they find on conspiracy websites.

I'm sure there are a growing number of experts in every field starting to come forward with their doubts. I thought exactly the same as everyone else until I started to do some research on the matter.

You being "sure" doesn't cut it I'm afraid, I haven't heard ANY credence given to the conspiracy theories by reputable professionals in relevant fields.

EDIT:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

There's another link for you to dismiss and huff about.

Seems to be a distinct lack of structural engineeers, fire engineers or architects on that list - I counted one before I got bored looking at the long list of artsy type qualifications. I'm sure Professors of English and ethics and similar disciplines are very worthy individuals, but I wouldn't go asking them to advise me about structural fire engineering.

Manic Moran

OK. Here's a compromise site.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

It argues that the steel did not melt, and even goes as far as to argue that the steel was not softened sufficiently to weaken the structure sufficiently for it to collapse on its own.

However, it also claims that the cause of the collapse was the impact and resulting fire.

Be warned: Lots of technical jargon and figures.

Frank d Martini was the chief engineer who designed the Towers

Here's me thinking it was Minoru Yamasaki who was the architect who came up with the design. Mr DeMartini was a manager, not a designer.

NTM

Hobbes

You do know a lot of this crap being released, the speech on illegal immigrants, etc is to distract from the fact that Bushes ratings are in the toilet.

MeatProduct

The only definite end result that all this has is to create polarity among us, not that we need any more. Here we are discussing who killed who and why and kind of missing the bigger picture.

Nick

bonkey

Untense wrote:

Wrong. Yes, the structures were an absolute marvel, actually they were designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 707's

No, they weren't. Moer correctly, the Port Authority may have claimed that they were, but the person who reportedly carried out the calculations has said that this is not what he did. Not only that, but there is conveniently no copy to be found anywhere of the calculations. This last fact alone should be enough to undermine any claim by those favouring an alternate version of events, given that lack of corroborating evidence is one of the basic flaws they level at some claims in the official version.

Regarding the impact-resilience of the crash, I'd refer you to [url=]here[/url] which tries to clarify what the truth behind the allegations are.

There is evidence to show that calculations were done on the finalised design to see if it would withstand an impact from a low-on-fuel airplane, lost in fog, travelling at close-to-stall speeds.

There are allegations the calculations were for high-speed (600 kph) rather than low-speed collisions, but no-one credible has come forward making the claim that you just did (multiple terrorist attack collisions).

Yes but this wasn't a conventially designed skyscraper, it had 47 massive colums in the core, a design feature unique to the WTC's.

Unique, eh? So that would mean that its incomparable to any other building? So you'd presumably agree that all of these "but building X was hit by a plane / burned" comparisons are invalid, given that the structure of the WTC towers was unique. Glad we've established that.

Even if it were possible the cores should still have remained erect.

Nope, they shouldn't.

The load-bearing columns were assembled piecemeal - with sections added as the building climbed. Each new section was merely tack-welded into place to hold it in place until it was properly secured by building the basic structure that it was intended to support. Indeed, the sections only gained their load-bearing capability once put under load (much like the Hoover Dam - being a gravity dam - relies on the water pushing it against its buttresses to make it a functioning dam).

To suggest that tehse columns would remain standing after the building collapsed around them is like suggesting that its no big feat to stack 20 or 30 pencils on top of each other, using nothing more than a microdot of blu-tac between each to hold them in place.

In short, its a ridiculous notion.

Instead the cores ended up getting cut up in to segments by an explosion, each segment roughly 30ft in length.

Actually, what are believed to be the original comments never specified that it was the cores...just that it was the "steel beams and columns".

You'll also note, should you check the reference, that there's no corroborating evidence, so yet again we have the well-established pattern of criticising official version for lack of evidence, and proposing alternates with an equal lack of evidence.

Furthermore, the outside body of the WTC was comprised of steel columns which were between 12 and 38 feet, so one would expect a fair amount of clean-ended 30-ish foot beams to be found.

How convenient.

Just what I was thinking about your claims with lack of evidence.

Why do they fail to mention Tower number 7, a 47 story building, which was not hit by any planes and had neglible fires, and was the furthest building away from the Twin Towers.

Because its being seperately investigated, and that report is still not finalised?
How sinister...them not reporting on it while they were still investigating.

Did you even bother to research things for yourself before deciding you were right ?

Are all the inaccuracies in your claims are just honest mistakes? Or maybe you actually knew all the stuff you've been corrected on and were...what...testing us to see whether we'd spot it or not?

Regardless, it would once again seem that people who believe something sinister went on are holding themselves and their theories to a lower standard than they demand of those who disagree with them. Why is it ok for you to offer a jumbled mix of fact, fantasy and unsupoprted supposition, but not for anyone who disagrees with you?

jc

weeder

i would like to add my opinion to this

in my opinion this is the same video released a few years ago only a higher resolution and in the first one that was 4 frames of video it shows whatever it was but in this it showsthe nose of the plane so it is in my opinion take the 4 frames from the original video and 4 from this one and you can see the nose then the next frame being the origianl picutr of whatever it was but too grainy too see
anyone who thinks this is a fake conspiracy i suggest you looking into other plane crashes and the mess they make as in the second or third layer there is a perfectly roud hole about 1/4 the size of a 757

bonkey

solas wrote:

lol, croppy boy, y'know bonkey is a politicians politician, it's their job to argue any point with conviction, doesn't mean they are right.

It might be easdy to dismiss what I'm doing as just that, but to do so would be to fundamentally misconstrue the argument I'm making.

My basic objection is that people favouring alternate theories are frequently displaying that they do not hold themselves to the same standards to those supporting the official version, do not hold their theories to the same standard as the official version, do not demand the same quality of proof from their evidence as they do to the evidence supporting the official version, do not accept expert or eyewitness testimony thats supporting the official story, but insist that evidence that supports their theory must be correct because its from eyewittnesses / experts.

Whilst engaging in all of this double-standardry, they typically denigrate those who would disagree with them of the very faults that they themselves all-too-frequently display.

This is what I am arguing, and quite frankly there's no question but that I'm right.

(aside: I could just as easily do the same to many of those who insist the official version is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but they generally don't go starting / taking over threads to insist that what was reported is true. And frankly, they're not as much fun to wind up).

Funnily enough, most people who support an alterante version of events won't see my criticism as being directed at improving teh argument they put forward (though in effect, thats what it is), but will prefer to see me as some sort of opposition for whatever reason they decide. Much as you've done here

Personally, I take that as confirmation of my stance. Proper, critical analysis of what I've posted would show that my objection is to weak, misleading, incorrectly-researched arguments and/or explanations which are held to a lower standard than those that have been rejected as being of too low a standard in some way. If someone can't actually see that, then I wouls suggest that its their critical thinking which is at fault - which is exactly what I've been alledging all along. They will instead see what it is they want or choose to see - not what is there. This doesn't bode well in supporting whatever line of argument it is that they wish me to consider.

jc

bonkey

weeder wrote:

in my opinion this is the same video released a few years ago only a higher resolution and in the first one that was 4 frames of video

This isn't a matter of opinion.

The 4 frames leaked a few years ago prompted a FoI request for the full tape, which was reufsed. The case was subsequently brought to court, and what with one thing and another, the tape in question was released earlier this week.

So yes. Its more of the same tape. Thats what its supposed to be.

jc

SpitfireIV

bonkey wrote:

My basic objection is that people favouring alternate theories are frequently displaying that they do not hold themselves to the same standards to those supporting the official version, do not hold their theories to the same standard as the official version, do not demand the same quality of proof from their evidence as they do to the evidence supporting the official version, do not accept expert or eyewitness testimony thats supporting the official story, but insist that evidence that supports their theory must be correct because its from eyewittnesses / experts.

Bonkey, I'm learning a lot here over the past few days, you sure are standing you're ground and doing so very well, but can I put a question to you?

Do you not agree that for every case stating that the twin towers fell as a reult of the crash/fire/gravity, there is equally as many cases that state the towers fell as a result of something more sinister? Which are equally backed up with there own research (which must be complete bonkers ) Why is this the case, if it was so simple then why cant everyone agree on what happened? I doubth its a case of trying to find a scape goat and find someone responsible for ignoring the treats and letting it happen, if that be the case the goverment would be there main target, not the actual sequence of events, ie, the mechanics behind the crash/fall/destruction.

There are just as many 'experts' in various fields that are not happy with the 911 commision as there are that are satisfied with the findings, if there werent we wouldnt still be hearing about it and the case would be put to rest.

No matter what is said here, be it for or against a conspiracy theory no one can say for certain what happened, you cant, no matter what research you have, beliefs or experience, you can speculate and believe what you want to believe but I doubth anyone here is that intelligent to have, alone, found the holy grail of 9-11, as earlier stated, I'd think that for every case for, there is a well grounded case against.

Heres an article that I thought was interesting, it sort of sits on the fence, and takes both sides into account, lots of qualified name titles in there:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/rodgwtcpdf.pdf


Cheers,

CroppyBoy1798

Kersh

I still havent decided on the 911 conspiracy theories yet.
While I do believe The US are hiding some facts, I dont think its a mass cover up.
But I have only 1 question......
If a video appeared tomorrow of a 757 flying into the pentagon, would the conspiracy theories be put to bed??? Would any doubter on this thread just put there hand up and say 'well d'ya know what, I believe it was a terrorist attack' ??

SpitfireIV

Kersh wrote:

But I have only 1 question......
If a video appeared tomorrow of a 757 flying into the pentagon, would the conspiracy theories be put to bed??? Would any doubter on this thread just put there hand up and say 'well d'ya know what, I believe it was a terrorist attack' ??

Kersh, if such a tape were released I think there would be millions satisfied, not just conspiracy theorists. That is all it would take, simple as that, proper footage of a plane hitting the building. It'd sure as hell satisfy me to see it too.

Kersh

Hmm, me too, theres weight on both sides. Almost headwrecking..:rolleyes:

civdef

There are just as many 'experts' in various fields that are not happy with the 911 commision as there are that are satisfied with the findings, if there werent we wouldnt still be hearing about it and the case would be put to rest.

This just isnt the case. The overwhelming consensus among professionals in relevant fields across the word is that the offical reports have it right. The voices behind the conspiracy theories aren't just aren't credible. Putting up a website, making some claims backed up with some red lines on photos, and cross referenced with other conspiracy sites does not make someone an expert. Neither does a qualification in an irrelevant field.

weeder

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm


http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php tho its about 3 years old its the best video on it ive seen


http://www.geocities.com/pentalawn2000/

solas

bonkey wrote:

Funnily enough, most people who support an alterante version of events won't see my criticism as being directed at improving teh argument they put forward (though in effect, thats what it is), but will prefer to see me as some sort of opposition for whatever reason they decide. Much as you've done here

I think I already stated my position on the issue. I'm not entirely interested in the affair, I'm more conerned about the way it is being used as a mask to cover up more important issues.
The suggestion of you being a politicians politician was a reference to the fact that the topic was being covered in politics as oppose to a general discussion forum where debate is not seriously engaged in on a regular basis.

bonkey

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Kersh, if such a tape were released I think there would be millions satisfied, not just conspiracy theorists. That is all it would take, simple as that, proper footage of a plane hitting the building. It'd sure as hell satisfy me to see it too.

Should such a tape ever be released, I can literally guarantee that within a month (and probably within 24 hours) someone on the web will have a detailed analysis of why its a fake.

Within another few weeks, there will be some experts adding credibility to it.

Should this also happen, would you not immediately be suspicious that it took about 5 years to release this tape, which is more than enough time to do a really good fake.

You'd be so easily swayed?

Do you not agree that for every case stating that the twin towers fell as a reult of the crash/fire/gravity, there is equally as many cases that state the towers fell as a result of something more sinister?

I'd say there's far more cases implying something sinister....but note that I'm not commenting on the credibility of either here.

Which are equally backed up with there own research (which must be complete bonkers )

Some of its not bonkers at all. Some of its based on very sound theory, come of it less so, and some of it is downright dishonest.

The important point is that its simply not enough to allege that explosives were used. Thats like saying "a plane crashed into the towers" and not needing to explain where the plane came from, who flew it, why they crashed, and so on and so forth.

Why is this the case, if it was so simple then why cant everyone agree on what happened?

There are precious few areas of science where everyone can agree unanimously.

(By the way, if you take your argument that I'm replying to thus far, and apply it to Hollow Earth theories, it would also apply. Do you think this makes a compelling case for the earth being hollow?)

As to the individuals themselves, I think there's no single factor. Some want to find suspicious behaviour. Some are exploiting the situation for gain (books, dvds etc.) Some are basing valid opinions on incorrect information.

People in large numbers rarely agree unanimously.

A big deal is made of differeing eyewitness testimony, but I always think of a German show I saw recently where a car crash was staged for two groups of unsuspecting test-subjects. One was a group of regular people (in their twenties, I think), and the other were all police on street/traffic duty. The crash involved a sequence of events, so it sure wasn't a blink-and-you-miss-it. Recall in both groups was statistically similar, and averaged somewhere around 60% accuracy. As far as I am aware, this is a typical accuracy-of-recall average for any given group in any given situation.

So is it unusual that people have differing recall? No. Does it mean that credence should be given to every word that suggests something sinister? No. Would one expect to find sentences from interviews a large number of witnesses that can be construed to imply a different sequence of events. Of course.

Will some people attempt to read something into these comments? Almost every time.
Will they always be wrong? Of course not, but generally they will be.

So do I rule out the possibility that something unusual / sinister happened? No, I don't, but I'd need to hear a pretty compelling case to believe its more than highly unlikely, bordering on impossible.

Have I heard a compelling case? Not in the slightest. Sure, there are some really good questions being asked....but there is also a huge amount of misdirection and/or incomplete research being done alongside...and with any so-called conspiracy theory we find ourselves - in reality - left with more questions, more (relatively) unfounded speculation, and more holes than what we started with.

I fully accept that there are some apparently strange irregularities. I don't question that there are some really serious unanswered questions. However, I don't believe for a second that anyone has put together any sort of a credible scenario as a replacement....but they always try. I've seen very few, if any, people saying "here's why the official version cannot be correct, so here's what questions it raises, and I haven't a clue what the answers are but sure would like to find out". You just (almost) never see it. It always gets a followup of "But here's what I think happened", and if you notice that's generally the part I'm saying hasn't been made as a case when I'm not simply challenging the alleged facts the claim rests on in the first case.

There are just as many 'experts' in various fields that are not happy with the 911 commision as there are that are satisfied with the findings,

Are there? I mean...really...you're actually suggesting you've checked the comparative numbers, are you? You're just using a figure of speech to mean "there's a heck of a lot", right?

I'm skeptical, because its an age-old argument, usually used by the side with the weaker case.

Consider that a pilot said that you can't pull a turn with the 757 the way he was asked about, cause it would stall. This argument is presented as expert testimony / proof explaining why it couldn't have been a 757. What it doesn't address is whether or not the details of the turn alleged to have been made are correct. What are they based on? Where did they come from? Were they what were presented to him when he made his comments? Was it a case of selective editing, and the guy maybe said you couldn't do it safely, and the plane would stall half the time? I ask this because there's been no shortage of analysis of conspiracy claims showing that such selective editing has taken place.

No matter what is said here, be it for or against a conspiracy theory no one can say for certain what happened, you cant,

But you'll notice I don't try. I'm saying the arguments about what else might have happened are weak, and should be even more unacceptable than the official story were they to be judged on an equal basis.

as earlier stated, I'd think that for every case for, there is a well grounded case against.

Actually, you left out the well-grounded bit earlier...which is why I agreed with it. I don't believe many of the alternatives are well-grounded, and when you stop taking them in isolation and rather judge them as a full series of events (again, consistent to how the official version is judged) then I believe they are far from well-grounded.

To be honest, the more that partake in discussions like this, the more I get the feeling that I'm being almost used as a research tool. Someone throws a handful of allegations, and when some/all of them are called sufficiently into doubt (or thoroughly refuted as can sometimes happen), instead of being told "hmmm, maybe I should reevaluate the stuff I believed to be true some more before continuing", I get "Aha! Here's another fistful of allegations. Take that you dastardly fiend. Answer those!" I mean...come on...such a tactic is hard to take as anything more than trying to drown out the opposition to claim victory, not actually make a case.

So on that note...I'll bow out. I'm done. Score another victory for the good guys, there's one less voice telling you you're wrong.

If I wanted to be conspiracist about it, I'd suggest that I'm being lured into such discussions by viral marketing. The busier the thread, the more often stuff like Loose Change gets mentioned (sure, you can view a low-res version online, but if you really wanna see the detail, I guess you'll buy the DVD, right?) . So maybe by bowing out I'm helping to foil the viral marketers' evil plots

jc

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

What it doesn't address is whether or not the details of the turn alleged to have been made are correct. What are they based on? Where did they come from?

I asked that question earlier. I'd still like to know.

RedPlanet

Insofar as "experts" questioning the official explanation of the towers collapse, i find this guy's paper quite good: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
But I'm not a physics guru.
The problem about molten steel is that while we have some witnesses that claim to have seen pools of molten metal, and molten steel; "we" members of the public never had access to the site to see for ourselves.
It was under lock-down by the Feds.
So it's a little dishonest of the other side of the debate to place the entire onus of proof on "us" because the public has been denied access.
Take for example the video stills this very thread is about.
They are practically useless in terms of evidence.
Yet its taken years for these sh*tty images to be seen by the public.
Like i said earlier, who released the 5 stills before? And why did they edit some out.
The people whom "leaked" it evidently had the ability to edit out frames to begin with. So i wonder what else has been edited and what point is there to edit any frames at all?
How do we know there isn't a missing frame that shows a nice broadside image of whatever struck the Pentagon?
Why should we trust these sources in the Pentagon when they have such history of nefarious activity?
That tape should be independently verified at a minimum.

Human behavior is a funny thing.

From the AH thread i posted a story about this guy at work.
--copy and paste--
I was having a 911 debate with one of the guys at work, an Architech. And he told me that at DIT (i think) one of his professors (Stuctural Engineering no doubt) gave a "very lengthy and detailed explanation" of how and why the 2 towers collapsed (early pancake theory). Anyway i listened to him but then he said the key words, quoting this professor...."the exo-skeleton was the main structural component of the building".
I knew this to be 100% false, and so i showed him just 2 internet pictures of the towers under construction: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
**edit: gotta scroll down about 2/3 the page to see the pics i'm onabout
As any laymen can plainly see, the main structural component is the core, not the flimsly exo-skeleton!
That pretty well silenced my workmate (we have structural engineers on-hand and they all agree about it)
So basically this professor at DIT was full of SH*Te and didn't bother to do the most cursory exploration of the issue
--

Begs the question, why was this Structural Engineering lecturer so eager and ready and willing to give a big shpeel reguritating the early Pancake Theory when he didn't even look at the evidence in front of him that easily rubbishes the claim that the exoskelten was the main structual component of the towers?
I dont think he was "in on the conspiracy", no. I think it's more banal than that. He's just a tool, and doesn't question "authority".

civdef

Physics lecturers are not experts on building design, or how they behave in fire. I'm a fire engineer, and I'm crap at quantum mechanics and astronomy. Different disiplines.

As any laymen can plainly see, the main structural component is the core, not the flimsly exo-skeleton!

Hmm, layman impressions based on a picture aside, how about producing something to back that assertion up?

(we have structural engineers on-hand and they all agree about it)

Indeed, that's funny, you appear to be acquainted with a very peculiar band of structural engineers so.

Begs the question, why was this Structural Engineering lecturer so eager and ready and willing to give a big shpeel reguritating the early Pancake Theory when he didn't even look at the evidence in front of him that easily rubbishes the claim that the exoskelten was the main structual component of the towers?
I dont think he was "in on the conspiracy", no. I think it's more banal than that. He's just a tool, and doesn't question "authority".

There's definitely a tool involved here somewhere allright, I just suspect its not the person you think it is.

RedPlanet

Well mister civdef.
Ironic that name since you are not so civil in your manners.
I linked to the photo's of the trade towers under construction if you were so bothered as to click on the link and scroll down about 2/3 the way.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the internal structural core is the primary supporting component of that building.
In fact it's a no-brainer.
I've got more than 1 Structual Engineer in my place of work and they all seem to agree that the exoskeleton is not the primary support of those buildings.

But since you appear to claim that the exoskelten IS the primary supporting component, why dont YOU produce evidence?