|
Physicist Explains to Tucker Carlson that 9/11 possibly had Gov't Involvement
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
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 |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Carlson is a douche. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Carlson is a douche. |
I'm glad you think that. :)
My girlfriend actually told me when we were watching him, "I bet he has a weenie this big... Guys like him always try to overcompensate..."
:) :) |
|
|
| 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 ed 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. |
|
|
| 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:
[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. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| 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 ed 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. |
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. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| 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. |
are you back from Ban Land? :stongue: welcome back... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
Then please try not to misunderstand me. I love a good outside dissenting voice in which the outcome results in a groundbreaking, earthshattering discovery as much as the next guy. But I didn't realize that we should merely discard peer-review and repeatable methodology as a consequence. Surely you're not advocating such a thought, are you Josh?
And as Occ had pointed out and had confirmed my suspicions, this physicist's work on the matter seems a bit fallacious to begin with.
Hence the necessity for peer-review and repeatable methodology, which I firmly advocate in any investigative endeavor.
And all those men you mentioned have, in fact, undergone repeatable methodology, and have all been successfully confirmed. Can we say the same thing about this individual? As it appears upon a quick examination, his conclusions don't seem to support the evidence given. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| ^ 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. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
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? |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
| josh4 |
| 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? |
Well they're certainly doing a good job of it with Roswell and Area 51! |
|
|
|
|
