Author Topic: Podcast #50  (Read 38672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« on: July 07, 2006, 04:57:25 PM »
Interview with Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed
News Items: Second hand smoke
Your E-mails: Binaural Beats, Aubrey de Grey
Science or Fiction
Skeptical Puzzle (answer plus new puzzle)

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2006, 05:04:26 PM »
Okay, I don't understand the answer to the puzzle, why the odds of winning are different if you change your selection after one unselected door is opened and does not contain the prize.

So I wrote a python script to try to see how that would work:
Code: [Select]

import random

def pickOtherDoor(door1):
    returnValue = 0
    otherDoor = random.randint(1,2)
    if door1 == 1:
        returnValue = 1 + otherDoor
    elif door1 == 2:
        if otherDoor == 1:
            returnValue = 1
        else:
            returnValue = 3
    else:
        returnValue = otherDoor
    return returnValue
       

pick_correct = 0
guess_correct = 0
other_correct = 0
cycles = 5000
choice_cycles = 0
cycle = 0

while cycle < cycles:
    cycle = cycle + 1
    choice = random.randint(1,3)
    guess = random.randint(1,3)
    pick = pickOtherDoor(guess)
    if (pick == choice):
        pick_correct = pick_correct + 1
    else:
        choice_cycles = choice_cycles + 1
        if (guess == choice):
            guess_correct = guess_correct + 1
        else:
            other_correct = other_correct + 1
       
print 'Guess: ',
print 'Correct ', guess_correct,
print 'Percent ', (guess_correct * 100)/choice_cycles, '%',
print ' Overall ', (guess_correct * 100)/cycles, '%'

print 'Other: ',
print 'Correct ', other_correct,
print 'Percent ', (other_correct * 100)/choice_cycles, '%',
print ' Overall ', (other_correct * 100)/cycles, '%'


choice is the door the prize is behind (1,2,3)
guess is the original guess of the contestant
pick is the door that is opened before the contestant gets a choice

if the pick doesn't have the prize, then I tally how many cases the guess was right and how many times the last door was right.

The outcome:
Guess:  Correct  1648 Percent  49 %  Overall  32 %
Other:  Correct  1661 Percent  50 %  Overall  33 %

What am I missing here?

For the python literate is my code doing the wrong thing?

Offline swpalmer

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Podcast #50
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2006, 07:18:08 PM »
Quote
pick is the door that is opened before the contestant gets a choice


A door is NOT opened before the contestant gets a choice.  The door is opened AFTER the contestant picks and that door is ALWAYs a door that remains that doesn't have the prize.  Only THEN does the contestant get to switch doors.

Your 'pickOtherDoor' method must change to only pick a losing door.

I.e. 'pick' is not allowed to equal 'choice' or 'guess' using your variable names.

Your variable names stink, btw :) ... they all have the same meaning to me :)  (pick, choice , guess) .. how about 'prize', 'choice', 'revealed'

So with my names, 'revealed' isn't allowed to be 'prize' or 'choice', and the contestant has the opportunity to stick with 'choice' or switch to the other unopened door.

Offline JD

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
Podcast #50
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2006, 08:19:31 PM »
The most obvious explanation I've ever seen is from http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/montybg.html



Quote
The inner wheel represents the number of the door that the car is behind, the middle wheel represents the door that is selected by the contestant, and the outer wheel represents the door Monty Hall can show. Spinning this roulette wheel once is equivalent to playing the game once. The outer wheel also tells you what your strategy should be to win. The red means that in order to win the contestant needs to switch doors, and the blue means that the contestant should not switch.
roblem with the forum?  email me: leykial *at* yahoo *dot* com
Turn on, tune in, drop out, and shut the hell up, hippie.
"I'm a pretty good researcher ." - Neal Adams

Offline geoffI

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Podcast #50
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2006, 08:28:18 PM »
I do it this way:

Assume behind ..

Door # 1 there is a goat

Door # 2 there is a goat

Door # 3 there is car

If the contestent picks Door #1 and switches the other goat is eliminated and they get the car

If the contestent picks Door #2 and switches, the other goat is eliminated and they get the car

If the contestent picks Door # 3 and switches, the other goat is eliminated and they get the goat

Twice as likely to get the car


Remember: it's not an OPTION that is eliminated. It's a GOAT.

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2006, 12:27:42 AM »
Y'all are being quite helpful. I see already that I missed a big something. I misunderstood the premise to be that the revealed door could be the prize. Now I understand the the revealed door will never be the prize. When I get a chance I'll have to model that instead, I think modeling it with a program will make it much clearer. Well, to me anyhow.

Offline Gilnei

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Resident Brazilian Skeptic
Podcast #50
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2006, 01:38:51 PM »
Quote from: "geoff"
I do it this way:

Assume behind ..

Door # 1 there is a goat

Door # 2 there is a goat

Door # 3 there is car

If the contestent picks Door #1 and switches the other goat is eliminated and they get the car

If the contestent picks Door #2 and switches, the other goat is eliminated and they get the car

If the contestent picks Door # 3 and switches, the other goat is eliminated and they get the goat

Twice as likely to get the car


Remember: it's not an OPTION that is eliminated. It's a GOAT.



This is the best explanation I've seen, and the one that convinced me.
Scientists are the leading cause of cancer in lab rats.

Offline Tai Fung

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2147
    • Everybody Tai Fung Tonight!
Podcast #50
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2006, 12:26:04 AM »
I haven't yet listened to podcast #50, but based on prior podcasts, I'm going to enter a guess on this week's riddle (about the pseudoscience that was found to be on the correct side of a debate) based on the clue given --


(possible spoiler space)
























Answer:  Phrenology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

(crosses his fingers)
Atheism should be about "Science and Social Justice" the same way Math should be about "Numbers and Fashion."

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Comments
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2006, 11:56:54 AM »
Just listened to #50 on a nice bike ride along the Toronto waterfront (though I had to turn it off while passing the Toronto Grand Prix setup where they were warming up... 'way too loud). A couple of observations came to mind:

I can't remember who brought them up in relation to binaural beats, but the beats you get when you play two musical notes that are close together are definitely unrelated. They're an interference phenomenon, sort of audio analogs to moire patterns. The peaks and troughs in the sound waves from the two sources either reinforce or cancel out, and this gets really noticable when the pitches are close together. The closer the notes, the slower the beats, because the longer it takes for the two pitches to get out of phase.

You can really hear these clearly if you play a semitone high up on a piano -- you'll get almost a buzzing from the beats.

As for the Skeptical puzzle -- that same question was a Science or Fiction early on in the show! I can't remember which episode it was, but it's definitely cropped up before.

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
9/11 investigation
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2006, 05:26:24 PM »
I was just sent a link to this excellent forensic recreation video of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon: , which pretty much rules out a missile (which wouldn'thave knocked down the lamp posts) or a truck bomb (which would have damaged the structures outside the Pentagon very differently).

Not that this will convince any die-hard conspiracy type. I've been told that there's a guy on one mailing list who's insisting that all of the footage of the planes hitting the towers was faked, and all of the eyewitnesses are actually actors reciting false testimony.

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2006, 10:13:00 AM »
I had a couple of minutes to revise the program, now with a correct understanding of the question. It becomes quickly obvious why it works.

Code: [Select]

import random
   
guess_correct = 0
other_correct = 0
cycles = 5000
cycle = 0

while cycle < cycles:
    cycle = cycle + 1
    prize = random.randint(1,3)
    guess = random.randint(1,3)
    if (guess == prize):
        guess_correct = guess_correct + 1
    else:
        other_correct = other_correct + 1
       
print 'Guess: ',
print 'Correct ', guess_correct,
print 'Percent ', (guess_correct * 100)/cycles, '%',

print 'Other: ',
print 'Correct ', other_correct,
print 'Percent ', (other_correct * 100)/cycles, '%',


There was nothing to do with the door that was revealed, so that variable and the function could be eliminated. You don't even have to run the program to see what the result will be.

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2006, 10:21:17 AM »
Let me just start with thanking for another insightfull podcast. I've downloaded and listened to just about every podcast thus far, but not bothered to actually comment on any due to me thus far actually agreeing to just about everything :)

Oh, and a little about me since this is my first post and all, 33 y/o male from Bergen Norway. Working with 3D animation for business and culture, with a previous career as an AV and Lights engineer for Live acts and conferences. Long time atheist and always a skeptic. Non conformist some would say :p

Anyhow, back to the subjectmatter; Conspiracies in general and 9-11 in particular. I'm not claiming to be an expert in these matters, but I do have one or two impression I'd like to share. First off, a short definition: A conspiracy is two or more people planning in secret to perform something in their interest through illegal and/or immoral means.

With the JFK assasination, this may or may not be the case. We will never know, and either position is mere speculation.

As we (almost) all know, the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory is pure bullshit. As is the notion that NASA is suppressing signs of ancient cultures on Mars and so forth. The evidence against these crackpot theories is just too overwhelming.

Todays favourite conspiracy-theories however center around the 9-11 tragedy. But one cannot dismiss that it was indeed a conspiracy. The official story tells the tale of a Muslim-fundamentalist conspiracy orchestrated by Al-Quada. However, the official story is filled with gaping holes. I'll briefly comment on the most glaring ones that is the easiest to prove incorrect.


Claim 1: That the executioners of the conspiracy were 19 devout muslims who all perished as the aircrafts they hijacked were destroyed.

This is genereally speaking not true. It is known that many of the 19 were indeed not devout muslims. They drank, they partied, seeked the company of strippers and prostitutes. Not entirely unnormal for the Westernized Saudi Elite most of these men originated from. But quite unnormal for fanatical muslims.

Several (at least 5) of the supposed hijackers are reported to be still alive by the BBC. Ofcourse, this can be explained by mistaken identity from either the FBI or the BBC and other circumstances. Neither organisations are perfect.

More information: http://www.physics911.ca/Howells:_Islamic_Jihad_or_Another_Northwoods%3F http://www.welfarestate.com/911/#9

Claim 2: The buildings (in NYC) collapsed due to structural damage sustained due to the impact and the ensuing fires after impact.

This is physically impossible, and is the single weakest argument in the entire official report. The jetfuel itself burned off within 3-5 minutes of impact, and the resulting lingering fires were not a risk to the structural integrity of the towers. At its peak, the fires might have reached 1000'C under the best (worst?) of circumstances. Though due to the diffusion of the fireball, a more likely temperature would be in the 650-850'C range. The steel used in the core was certified up to 1500'C without suffering risk of structural breakdown. Infact, the entire building was designed to withstand amongst other things jetaircraft impacting into it.

In the history of (steel reinforced) highrises, there is not a single previous example of building collapse due to fire. All of a sudden you get not one such incident, but three. On the same day. And one of those buildings (WTC7) was not even seriously on fire, nor struck by aircraft or drenched in jetfuel.

Physical evidence from the site indicate the use of professional demolition explosives beeing used to facilitate the collapse of all three WTC buildings.

A very well documented (and peer reviewed) article by Physics Prof. Steven E. Jones may be found here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Also, here is a lecture he held on the subject: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

More from Steven E. Jones and the "Scholars for truth" society here: http://www.st911.org/

(as a sidenote, in the lecture he uses amongst other clips, the controlled demolition of "Postgirobygget" in Oslo, Norway :p And as an AV technician it amuses me that he manage to press right mouse button when trying to go to the next slide in the Powerpoint presentation :D Prof. Jones is though a Latter day Saint, at the very end of the lecture he does briefly show a slide with religious mumbo-jumbo whilst another religious true believer brings up the topic during the Q&A session. It doesn't quite help the credibility of the lecture ending it on such a note, but as long as the rest of the lecture is based on scientific method and facts it shouldn't really be an issue.)

I'd love to see you invite him to your show for an interview, perhaps on the topic of "The official 9-11 story, a Skeptics point of view" :)

Claim 3: Passengers onboard United Airlines Flight 93 used cellphones to contact loved ones.

This is highly unlikely. Not that they tried, but rather the technical feasability of it. Consider the fact that to facilitate cellphonecalls from onboard passenger aircraft, airlines and aircraftmanufactures have had to install a cellphone transmitter node on the aircraft itself to boost the signal sufficently to make it possible to make uninterruptet and reliable cellphonecalls onboard passenger aircraft at cruising altitude. Ofcourse, if Flight 93 was flying low at the moment the calls were made (below
8000 feet) it could be done, but not without substancial disturbances in connection due to low signalstrength inherent with cellphones (not to mention that you're sitting whithin an all metal faraday-cage which greatly reduce the efficiancy of the cellphones outbound signal.).

For more on this visit: http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

There are several other discrepancies in the official report. But these three are the ones that are easiest to disprove. It would seem that the official investigation was not founded on scientific method. That is looking at the facts, doing the appropriate research and then reach a conclusion. It seems more and more like it was based in political doctrine. That is, you already have conclusion and look for facts that support that conclusion whilst ignoring or distorting the facts that do not. Not to mention trying to get rid of as much as the evidence as soon as possible. Like not allowing forensic experts into ground zero, whilst shuffling the debris to offshore recycling.

As for who and why I don't know, and all claims on who and why will remain speculation until proof positive is obtained. But the old saying "follow the money" leads you into very interesting and scary avenues. And later events, like the invasion of Iraq do paint a very bleak picture for the future as long as the current US administration is in power (after having most probably cheated their way to the whitehouse, not once but twice).

Is this lunatic conspiracy theory, or is it healthy skepticism to events in world politics? We know from history that the powers that be are not always entirely honest with regards to methods and motives. The nazi-orchestrated Reichstags burning facilitated Hitlers grab of dictatorial power. The Pearl Harbour attack was known to the hour several weeks in advance by US authorities, but no warning was given as the administration wanted to involve the US on the Allied side in the war and needed an excuse. The Tonkin Bay episode was a fabrication to get the US involved in the Vietnam conflict.

So in all fairness, beeing skeptical of the official story regarding 9-11, a story so full of gaping holes, is quite possibly the only reasonable position one should have. Especially in light of the rather abysmal record the current US administration have with regards to telling the truth...

edit: some spellchecking and bolding of claims to make it more readable

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Podcast #50
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2006, 01:20:31 PM »
Regarding point #2:

The temperature was more than sufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the steel and decrease its ability to carry the load on top of it. Part of the problem was that the insulation around the steel was brittle and the jet impact knocked much of it off. The then uninsulated steele became weakened in the heat and could not take the load. Once the collapse started, nothing could stop it. The floors below could not take their load plus the load of collapsing floors above. This was very well documented and explained in multiple venues. The NOVA special was particularly good.

There is no evidence of a demolition. Video of the collapses do not show the timed explosions used in planned demoltion nor can you hear timed explosions before the collapse. Comparisons with films of demoltions actually disprove this hypothesis.

WTC7 had propane tanks that were ruptured and which fed the internal flames for hours - during which the fire was left to burn because there were not the resources to fight it. Also, WTC7 was structurally compromised when part of the the twin towers fell on it and collapsed part of its structure. Bottom line - no real mystery there.

Regarding point #3 - there is no difficulty making cell phone calls from inside a plane. I have done it multiple times (when the plane is on the tarmac and it is OK to do so. So there is no problem with multiple cell phone calls from these low-flying jets. That point is just totally false.


The argument that the government is lying because they are untrustworthy is an ad hominem logical fallacy. You need positive evidence of a conspiracy, and there isn't any.

Also, you talk about the scientific method, but you have to consistently apply it to conspiracy theories as well. Consider all of the evidnece - not just the apparent anomolies. Also, consider all the implications of such a conspiracy and account for them as well.

There are in fact no gaping holes in the standard explanation of 9/11. Like any complex historical event, there are some minor anomalies, quirky events, and missing pieces, but only what would be expected by chance alone. But consider the prevailing conspiracy theories - or just the notion of any major 9/11 conspiracy (regardless of the specifics). They all have cavernous holes.

So what the conspiracy theorists do in this case is plug up tiny or non-existent holes by substituting a theory that has gaps the size of the grand canyon. Not very logical.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2006, 04:58:47 PM »
Has any other high-rise building sustained a hit from an aircraft like happened on 9/11? We're talking about a 400,000lb plane with 23,000 gallons of fuel impacting at high speed. I don't think there is any way one can just say that the effects of that much energy striking a building can be a known quantity.

Just for comparison a loaded B-17 bomber would weigh about 65,000lbs and carry 1,700 gallons of fuel and fly much slower. I think it is easy to forget just how big those planes were and how much fuel they carried.

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2006, 05:33:00 PM »
Thank you for your swift reply. Much appreciated :)

Just a couple of comments.

Regarding you response to Claim 2: Now, I haven't seen the NOVA special you mention. But Popular Mechanics (not to mention the official report) have in an article given a similar "Pancake" explanation of the collapse of the two towers. In short that a domino effect of one floor failing leading to the subsequent floors collapsing under the weight of the floor(s) above slamming into it.

Now this is all well and good in theory. However gravity and fact contradicts this explanation. Both towers was about 1400ft high. If you stood on top of one of the towers and dropped a hammer from the edge, that hammer would in a vacuum take ~10 seconds to reach the sidewalk down below.

Now consider, that it took ~10 seconds for the first tower total collapse, and ~8 seconds for the second (seismic and video evidense collaborate these timings). For the Pancake collapse theory to hold water, that assumes near no resistance as each floor slammed into the next. This is quite impossible. Each subsequent floor downwards would give tremendous resistance. Granted not enough to stop the process, but certainly enough to slow it down considerably from free fall velocities.

Besides, should the Pancake solution to the collapse be correct, significant parts of the inner core of the building should still be standing as the floors broke off and peeled from it downwards under the load. After the dust settled, the highest parts sticking up, was parts of the outer facade, not the significantly stronger inner core.

To have the entire structure collapse in free fall velocity, one must weaken the structure through controlled cutting of the main loadbearing structures at regular intervals as the structure came tumbling down. IE the very robust core of the buildings had to be weakened from top to bottom in rapid sequence.

To facilitate this -controlled- top to bottom weakening one does not need to use ordinary demolition explosives (Thermite) which do have a very characteristic signature of bangs and puffs and flashes. As you pointed out in reference to the video of the Norwegian Highrise demolition. You can use a slower burning compound called Thermate (just add sulphur to Thermite). It will reach superhot temperatures in fractions of a second, and would cut through reinforced steel like a hot knife through butter. It will however not have a significant explosion signature. This picture clearly shows one of the supporting steel columns beeing cut at 45' angle (top middle) with molten metal residue having solidified down the side. Exactly what one would see after a controlled demolition.




Oh, and that the second collapse took about two seconds less, is due to the top part of it keeling over before the collapse started. The collapse of the second tower thus initially started at a lower floor (about where the plane hit), and the floors above keeling over had a small head start. Interestingly, the entire top section of this tower disintegrated seemingly in mid air.

As for WTC7, I was not aware of ruptured propanegas tanks. I'll look in to it, and thanks for the information. But my immidiate reaction to this information, is that propanegas is very volatile, and is certainly not slowburning. One would expect a solid explosion if significant amounts of propane was ignited at once. Excepting ofcourse if the propane escaped the tanks under a stable release of pressure with no significant release of gas before it ignited. Neither can vibrations due to the collapsing towers have critically affected the structural integrity of WTC7. The collapses themselves registered no more than 2,3 on the richter scale. Well within the limits with regards to earthquake margins all modern buildings are design to handle. The airpressure from the collapsing towers did have a small effect. It blew in windows for several blocks radius. Also from pictures you can see quite a few holes in WTC7 from debris (and fires obviously). But that impacted the facade, not the internal loadbearing structure. Excepting WTC7, no other sorrounding buildings collapsed. But quite certainly, they did not have burning propane from ruptured tanks. If the propane exploded roughly in the middle of the structures basement, the shockwave could very well have critically damaged vital load bearing structures (which are designed to handle downwards pressure, not lateral pressure). And the ensuing fires didn't help I'm sure.

Regarding you response to Claim 3: Yes, I'd expect nothing else. Airports are high density areas with very good cellphone coverage. I would be quite amazed if it weren't possible to use a cellphone inside an aircraft whilst it is still on the tarmac. From the experiments mentioned in the links i gave in my initial post, you will see that as you get to 2000 feet and higher, stable uninterrupted cellphoneusage becomes more and more unlikely the higher the altitude. And at cruising altitude almost impossible. To manage a good uninterupted connection above 8000 feet, the aircraft itself need a cellphone-node. As have been installed on some aircraft by both Boeing and Airbus. None of the 9-11 aircraft had such equiptment though.

---

But please understand, I am in no fashion defending all the more esotheric conspiracy theories that exist regarding 9-11. I've read and heard about all the usual mumbo-jumbo, like the aircraft was remote controlled. The pentagon was hit by a missile or drone (not a 757). That it was all organised by secret illuminatu groups etc. You know, all the fringe crackpot lunacy that floats around on the internet.

What I am doing however is looking more deeply into the discrepancies in the official explanation that is not only highly unlikely, but also verifiably false. Like the 19 Hijackers list not beeing correct. Like the impossibility of the Pancake theory beeing behind bringing down the towers. Like the unlikelieness of keeping up a 23 minute long cellphonecall from Flight 93 from high altitude without breaking up or loosing connection once. Although the last one is not outside the realm of possibility, it have yet to be reproduced in experiments even flying as low as 2000feet.

So there is a case to be made for the possibility that the US government is not entirely candid in its explanation of what happened during 9-11. And if there is such a conspiracy by the current US administration, either a conspiracy by failure to warn and act (like in the Pearl Harbour case) or by direct involvement (like in the Reichstagfire case), then the motive is pretty straight forward, what it always is: Greed and lust for power.

I cannot quite remember who said it, but "War is merely armed robbery on a massive scale!". And 9-11 was just the excuse the US administration needed to launch not one, but two wars. And the Iraq war in particular was planned and wanted by the administration long before 9-11 2001. We know they lied about getting warnings from foreign intelligence agencies prior to 9-11. Maybe they did so to try to cover their collective behinds, but their stories soon fell apart and they admitted to receiving prior warning. We know they lied about the reasons to attack Iraq. Iraq was by no means connected to Al-Quada or other terrorist organisations, and Iraq certainly did not have WMD, much less the capability to deliver such weapons to the US.

But you're entirely correct in there is not at present any solid evidense of a conspiracy. Such a theory cannot be stated as fact. Not yet anyways. Remember, it took the fall of Nazi-Germany before the details and evidense of the Reichtagsfire was uncovered. It can be stated as possible though. Even likely if one is a bit paranoid, or just don't like Bush Junior or his stated political agenda as outlined in PNAC.

The official explanation is also quite possible, but it does have its discrepancies and a few outright impossibilities. And I do try to look at the whole picture. And when I do, the official explanation does not add up. What the administration did before, under and after the attack does at best point towards gross incompetence (not a far fetched scenario as such, just look at how they handled the Katrina disaster). This current US administration are known as notorious liars. That is proven repeatedly. Hell, they even lied about having no indication of the levees of New Orleans beeing dangerously understrength despite evidense to the contrary repeatedly beeing presented to them.

A quick note at a couple of other perceived discrepancies many conspiracy theorists claim is proof of, um, conspiracy:

-Close link between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens: Entirely correct and proven beyond any doubt. But not mystical. Saudi-Arabia is one of the US biggest suppliers of oil. I'd expect nothing less than the Oilcentric Bushes having close relations with one of the leading Saudi families.
- Many citizens, politicians and military (Even Salman Rushdie for some bizarre reason) was warned not to fly in the US or be in lower Manhattan on 9-11. Easily dismissed as lower-ranked officials in the know (of foreign intelligence agencies warnings prior to 9-11) leaking their information to loved ones, friends, family, business and military associates. The grapewine is not entirely ineffective :)

I hope I've clarified some points, but in the process I'm sure I've inadvertenly obfuscated others. And I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong.

Cheers, and keep up the good work!

Last minute addition in answer to Erik: Um, no, not to my knowledge. The 9-11 disaster is quite a unique event, but it was not unforseen. The design of the Twintowers did take into account the possibility that a 707 might hit it head on with a full complement of fuel. But it was humans that made those designs, and humans that assembled it all. And humans are not entirely infallable. Besides, stresses and erosion over time could weaken the overall structure. Metal Fatigue is not a new concept. Oh, and also, a 707 is quite smaller than a 767. It would still at least partially break through the outer facade and spill vast quantities of kerosene into the interior.

Apart from a multiengine propeller plane crashing into Empire State building, (and a small Cessna into a highrise in a weird suicide attempt) I don't think there's been many Aircraft-Building collisions. But as previously mentioned, there have been several highrise fires. Some have lasted for days, and none have weakened the structures to collapse. Ofcourse that does not prove anything as such.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain