Rotty:

Fair enough. I concur with much of what you say, but found other parts of your post to be a rather vague. Could you clarify, for example, which "other opinions" you're referring to, who these "individuals" are, in what ways they are "more trusted" or more "knowledgeable" and finally who they are "more trusted" or more "knowledgeable" than?

Singling me out? You said "we all." It's difficult not to feel targeted when someone says that. Further, you've expressed something rather less than enthusiasm for those principles in the past. However, you have my apologies for being somewhat brusque in my reply.

Well, no, some of us live in a world of evidence, argument and reason -- a world it seems you have no interest in.

This clip serves as fairly compelling evidence against the 9/11 conspiracy theories; it shows how a controlled demolition should look. The blasting is appreciably divided into distinctive yet tightly consecutive stages. The individual explosions and their ejecta are numerous, very clearly visible, observably sequential and are accompanied by distinctive patterns of ear-splitting sounds that would have been audible for miles around.

There is neither any video or photographic evidence nor any compelling witness testimony of anything of the kind happening on 9/11. All such evidence is compatible with a non-conspiratorial course of events.

Name the information that the government is "withholding"; further, explain what is unusual about any such information being withheld.

eric3579:

Well, by watching the videos, we can fairly straightforwardly see that the World Trade Center towers didn't collapse at free-fall speeds. Keep an eye on the outermost debris as the collapse takes place. It clearly falls notably faster than the main mass of the structure. So, unless we are to think that this debris is falling faster than free-fall speed (which would be impossible), it's reasonably clear that the main mass of the structure is falling appreciably slower than free-fall speed.

You state that you have "no doubt" that "hundreds of physicists" would be "explaining how this can occur if it was at all possible". However, this is an example of the fallacy of appealing solely to your own personal incredulity. Further, regarding collapse times and energy transfer, you ask for a "physicist that says different". Well, here's physicist Dr. F. R. Greening: Energy Transfer in the World Trade Center Collapse.

As to your last post, in my experience, the more prosaic explanations for the events of 9/11 are supported by overwhelming evidence. The conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are supported by no compelling evidence whatsoever; they're nothing but pseudo-science, ignorance, lies and deceit. I by no means wish to colour you with this assessment, but even within the limited confines and fleeting nature of this thread, we have seen a veritable microcosm of it.

Wrong again -- twice. Firstly, the "entire buildings" simply were not "reduced to dust". Secondly, regarding the 9/11 Commission Report, if you had actually read it, then you would have known that it doesn't deal with the issue of building collapses at all, let alone claim that they were due to fire.

So, you accuse other people of not having read the relevant material while inadvertently letting slip that you haven't read it yourself. Nice.

Irishman:

The towers simply did not collapse at "free-fall speed". Further, you suggest that they couldn't have collapsed due to "burning aviation fuel", but you seem to have mysteriously forgotten a rather significant additional factor -- the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner.

Choggie:

I think this is around the eleventh time I've asked you this, but do you actually have any evidence whatsoever to support your absurd fantasies regarding 9/11 and controlled demolitions?

Good job, Sageous.

So, this video has been intentionally stripped of its context -- yet another example of the deceitful nature of the conspiracy theorists. Here's the quotation in more context:

The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

So, in light of the fact that there’s absolutely nothing in the way of compelling empirical evidence for the conspiracy theories, you claim that we should simply jettison (or at least substantially devalue) tiresome old concepts such as evidence, argument, reason and expert opinion. Instead, we should embrace anti-intellectualism and privilege pseudo-evidence in the form of the “opinions of everyday people.” Well, there’s a name for that: demagoguery. If we were to heed your advice, we would then see creationism (not to mention practically every other crackpot idea under the sun) being taught in publically funded schools.

You’re right about one thing though, the claims of the conspiracy theorists and their acolytes are indeed being “discounted for the sake of a certain belief” – the belief that an empirical theory needs to actually be supported by evidence.

I have neither the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to engage with the religious content of this "documentary," but judging by the ludicrous and deceitful nature of its 9/11-related content (and also by the anti-Semites, thoroughly discredited conspiracy fantasists, neo-Nazis, survivalist gun nuts, racists and Holocaust deniers it cites as sources), I wouldn't recommend put too much faith in it.

As I have already pointed out, there is absolutely no evidence that the Pentagon is hiding videos of the impact. If you know of any such evidence, then please present it.

To some degree, you’re right when you say that conspiracy theorists are "just asking questions"; the problem is, however, that they're utterly disinterested in any answers that contradict their crackpot ideas.

Can you please explain to me why you believe it to be strange that World Trade Center 7 collapsed? Further, it didn't collapse in a "demolition style fashion"; there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. Again, if you know of any such evidence, then please present it.

I forgot the right-wing's penchant for logical fallacies: people who ask questions about 9/11 are hurting the victim's families, people who question the wars are hurting the troops, people who question Bush are just haters.

I suppose the burning irony here is that according to Rougy, people who disbelieve the 9/11 conspiracy theories are automatically right-wing, Bush-loving war-hawks

I forgot the right-wing's penchant for logical fallacies... Where are those WMDs, dickhead?

Similarly, the irony here is that this is an example of both the red herring fallacy and a (false) tu quoque fallacy (not to mention a bit of ad hominem or the strawman and false dichotomy fallacies in the first quotation).

It's a new one – "Evidence 'n' Argument" flavour. It's a lot more refreshing than the "Plain Ole' Faith 'n' Rhetoric" the conspiracy theorists are quaffing. Would you care to try some?

BicycleRepairMan:

You're probably on the right track regarding the collapse of World Trade Center 7, but there are a few things I should really clarify; currently, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, it collapsed due to a combination of the following:

1. Large parts of World Trade Center 1 literally fell onto it and into it causing major structural damage (to the building itself as opposed to merely its foundations).

2. It suffered eight hours of widespread and unfought fires.

PS: There are a number of pieces of photographic and video evidence of the World Trade Center 1 collapse impact itself, the resultant damage and the ensuing fires.