TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Physicist Explains to Tucker Carlson that 9/11 possibly had Gov't Involvement
Physicist Explains to Tucker Carlson that 9/11 possibly had Gov't Involvement
Incredible, but this theory was shared with Tucker Carlson (as much as I despise him) on a Monday TV show where the guest was a distinguished physicist. He argued based on certain physical principles, and the damage sustained by other buildings, that some bombs must have been planted inside the buildings in addition to the damage caused by the planes.
Apparently he argued that the bombs could have been planted by the government.
Here's the interview with him: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
That was Monday. Today (Weds.) Carlson did a follow-up story where he said he received a lot of comments from viewers. Here's where he discusses the possibility of gov't involvement himself:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/#051116a
Carlson is a douche.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Carlson is a douche. |
It's an interesting theory, though not an entirely compelling one. For every one dissenting individual like this guy, you're likely going to find 20 or so scientists/architects/etc. who staunchly disagree with him.
And yes, it does fit nicely into the PNAC thought of needing a "Pearl Harbor" like event to take us into Iraq and elsewhere. And yes, part of me wants so badly to believe that this Administration is just that fucked up to actually consider pulling off a stunt like that.
But it is idle speculation and unsupported, and we have to acknowledge that. Now if more physicists, engineers, and architects come forward and support such a notion, then I might be willing to acknowledge this guy's theory. Peer review and supporting confirmations would go a lot further. But until that day comes I must simply conclude what the consensus and 9/11 Commission report concludes - this was Al Qaeda through and through, and no one else.
I read his paper. It seems like he cherry picks his points. For example, in arguing for a controlled demolition, he presents the argument of symetry. Yet symetry is completely disregarded when he considers the collapse of the south tower:
[img]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/338_south_tower_collapse.jpg[/quote]
And if a controlled demolition could only be the cause of damage to WTC 7, what caused the damage to all the other surrounding structures?
Not to mention his overall conclusion is a false dilemna fallacy. Hmmm actually this kind of reminds me intelligent design.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It's an interesting theory, though not an entirely compelling one. For every one dissenting individual like this guy, you're likely going to find 20 or so scientists/architects/etc. who staunchly disagree with him. And yes, it does fit nicely into the PNAC thought of needing a "Pearl Harbor" like event to take us into Iraq and elsewhere. And yes, part of me wants so badly to believe that this Administration is just that fucked up to actually consider pulling off a stunt like that. But it is idle speculation and unsupported, and we have to acknowledge that. Now if more physicists, engineers, and architects come forward and support such a notion, then I might be willing to acknowledge this guy's theory. Peer review and supporting confirmations would go a lot further. But until that day comes I must simply conclude what the consensus and 9/11 Commission report concludes - this was Al Qaeda through and through, and no one else. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Friedrich Hayek Christopher Columbus Alfred Wegener Nicolaus Copernicus Just because the majority believes you're wrong does not mean you are and is no basis for an argument. Strange that you might take that stance after the last election. I'm all for the scientific process but wide acceptance isn't a requirement. |
welcome back...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Friedrich Hayek Christopher Columbus Alfred Wegener Nicolaus Copernicus Just because the majority believes you're wrong does not mean you are and is no basis for an argument. Strange that you might take that stance after the last election. I'm all for the scientific process but wide acceptance isn't a requirement. |
^ You're right but just because a good amount of scientists don't agree with it isn't reason to mean it hasn't gone through the repeatable methodology. The men I mentioned were widely and sometimes harshly disputed at first even after having gone through (some sort of) repeatable methodology. The same gaps or holes in a theory can be looked at as decisive evidence the entire theory should be disregarded or as a mere technicality depending on the opinions and views of the observer.
I'm kinda wondering, what's the point of the planes then? They could have just planted explosives in the buildings and claim that the Al Quaeda guys did it again. After all, the did do it in 1995 or something like that. And this administration isn't really unfamiliar with making false accusations. Besides, the planes did hit, and the buildings did collapse from the point of impact. If the explosives were already there, I'm kinda thinking that the impacts would cause them to go off.
Btw did anyone notice how most of the conspiracy theories claim that the WTC impact wasn't sufficient enough to bring down the towers, while on the other hand they proclaim that the pentagon impact should have more or less brought the Pentagon down?
If there was a top-level government conspiracy, a hell of a lot of people must have been in on it. Do you honestly think that all of them (from government officials, to all the people involved with the investigations later on) could have been kept quiet for the past 4 years without even the smallest hint of a leak?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade If there was a top-level government conspiracy, a hell of a lot of people must have been in on it. Do you honestly think that all of them (from government officials, to all the people involved with the investigations later on) could have been kept quiet for the past 4 years without even the smallest hint of a leak? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade If there was a top-level government conspiracy, a hell of a lot of people must have been in on it. Do you honestly think that all of them (from government officials, to all the people involved with the investigations later on) could have been kept quiet for the past 4 years without even the smallest hint of a leak? |
CARLSON: I want to read you a quote from the 'Deseret Morning News,' a paper in Utah, from you. I'm quoting now.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic..."
A diversion tactic. Brilliant. 
IMHO, I think what all the conpsiracy theorists are saying is that 9-11 attacks were such an un-supportable outrage, they just can't concieve of the possibility that America might have the moral high ground on this issue. It HAS to be the Bush Administration's fault, right? It just CAN'T be America's enemies, right? EVERYTHING is the Bush Administration's fault, right? Hurricaines, Tsunami's, Lost Elections, on and on and on....lame, lame lame LAME lame.
Believe me, there are a LOT more powerful people than "Message board conspiracy theorists" who want to bring down the Bush Administration in this coutry, and if there WAS anything to ANY of these STUPID conspiracy theories, those forces would have pulled out the proof and used it by now.
It's really counter-productive to engaging conversation to even consider these outlandish and impossible scenarios!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I read his paper. It seems like he cherry picks his points. For example, in arguing for a controlled demolition, he presents the argument of symetry. Yet symetry is completely disregarded when he considers the collapse of the south tower:  [quote]Of course, you'd also have to factot into it that a top down implosion isn't the very normal way to pull a building. It could have been rigged more for the effect. Also, I've yet to hear a good explanation for why they refused to acknowledge the explosions in the basement. [quote]And if a controlled demolition could only be the cause of damage to WTC 7, what caused the damage to all the other surrounding structures? Not to mention his overall conclusion is a false dilemna fallacy. Hmmm actually this kind of reminds me intelligent design. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X It also takes one heck of a lot of planning with strategic placement of cutting charges, etc. to take a building of that size down... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco Really? I think you're right! And how then do you explain that during the cutting of beams and placing of all these charges, NO ONE noticed it going on!?!? |
| quote: |
| Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on. http://web.archive.org/web/20010914...74592-5,00.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco You know, when you really take the time to think about this shit, it can make your head explode. |
| quote: |
| Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line. Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working. The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. "There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press, gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer. The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said. They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured. Realizing he had to get help, Mike ascended to the Lobby Level where he met Arti DelBianco, a member of his work crew. People were now coming down the same stairway from above the lobby and Arti and Mike had to stay where they were to direct people out of the stairway door and into the building's lobby. If they didn't, people descending could walk past the lobby door and unwittingly keep descending into the sublevels of the building. Gerard Tate, an engineer who rushed to the World Trade Center, discovered trapped firefighters in the ruins and summoned the help which saved their lives. On the 38th floor, Joe Shearin exited the elevator and began his walk down the hallway to meet with the tenant who had requested to see him. About 50 feet down the hallway, he heard a loud explosion and was lifted into the air. "I can't even tell you how far I traveled," he recalled. When he landed, people were already coming out of their offices into the hallway. "They were screaming, hollering," he said. "They were asking what they should do and where they should go". Joe directed them down the stairwells and out of the building. http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029 |
I saw this episode and I have to agree with Tucker on one thing. The physicist was a horrible guest. He barely knew how to construct a solid argument. The physicist had a hard time explaining himself and everytime he started to get hold of his words, Tucker would cut him off and say there's no time. That interview was the stupidest one ever. Although I was relieved that he came on the show to shed some light on this theory, which I do agree with and am still researching. You can watch this sorry excuse for an interview right here:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm...-481991123d70&f
I agree. That video is pretty bad. He didn't exactly give him a chance to either explain or do his demonstration, though.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.