[Phys-L] Re: Here we go again. WTC brought down by aircraft, not.

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

This sounds much more reasonable.  Unfortunately the conspiracy advocates
take reasonable questions and turn them into material that convinces the
gullible.  I tend to be doubtful because it is unlikely the terrorists had
the expertise, ability, and opportunity to precisely place charges to neatly
demolish 3 buildings.  And then might they not prefer to have them topple
rather than neatly fall?  The latter may actually have not been possible.

Indeed if they had placed charges, why not just detonate the charges at the
same time the planes hit?  This would kill many more infidels, and make it a
bigger event.  Or just detonate the charges to make it a complete surprise.
I don't think they have any incentive to hide the use of charges.  They
wanted maximum destruction and wished to take credit for all of it.  While
they were able to work the American system to hit the towers with planes, it
is clear that they really did not think ahead to all possible implications.
For example they did not realize that the 4th mission could be aborted
because passengers could communicate with the outside.  They also had no
idea that we would invade Afghanistan and fight back as much as we have.

There are generally always fuzzy areas in all explanations, so more
investigation could certainly be done.  The same thing is true of evolution,
quantum theory... but only certain areas of science and engineering have
come under fire.  I am surprised that the religious right has not thought
that quantum theory might conflict with their views.  I guess the remoteness
and difficulty of physics has kept it out of their sight.

In the end I would tend to give more credence to the report that carefully
examined all of the sources of information, and that had team members who
could double check the results, over individual speculations.  I suspect
that Feynman could have readily given a convincing demo as to why the
buildings collapsed.  So by all means look further, but I doubt we can find
evidence of more conspiracy.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> I read through most of his paper and while it is obvious that he has
> an opinion as to what happened, what he is actually asking for is
> further inquiry because the initial inquiry did not provide a
> satisfactory understanding of the event.
>
> It seems to me that we should always support additional inquiry if we
> don't understand an event. I believe that is really the whole point
> isn't it?
>
> Attacking someone who says "I don't understand. I need to ask more
> questions to help me understand." seems strange from this list.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l