Likely, but not certain. It seemed as if GWB wanted to "finish the war" his father had started and didn't (get Saddam etc.) So... maybe they would leverage a multi-plane hijacking with "only" passengers killed as a reason to invade.Right. "It wouldn't have been a big enough statement/gesture/excuse to go to war?"
I know that the official story is that of the fuel. But the fuel is part of the plane...
First - my point was to distinguish two very different stages of Twin Towers collapse:I know that the official story is that of the fuel. But the fuel is part of the plane and I thought I covered that by saying "heat".
I doubt there is such a model which addresses the specific WTC issues without re-introducing the same problems that stop people from comprehending in the first place. The WTC collapses involved some very complex mechanisms which most people cannot "visualise". Misunderstandings arise over some very fundamental issues of engineering applied physics. Those issues when reduced to simplified models can be understood by most persons who seriously want to understand. My target is to help those persons. NOT the so-called truthers who are locked in denial at any cost.Indeed, it's a difficult challenge.
Is there an online interactive "physics" website/app where you could build a simple model that others could play with to help understand the points being made? I know of some simple rigid body physics simulations, but that's not enough, it would need to understand stress/strain and general irrigidity.
Not to mention that steel, and slabs from the core and outside the core was subject to heat and were expanding. The NIST "scenario" seems to largely ignore that the core was losing capacity including the load transfer that Econ shows in his diagram. The core's perimeter shared the floor loads with the facade panel columns... And there was "excess" capacity referred to as "factor of safety....I doubt there is such a model which addresses the specific WTC issues without re-introducing the same problems that stop people from comprehending in the first place. The WTC collapses involved some very complex mechanisms which most people cannot "visualise". Misunderstandings arise over some very fundamental issues of engineering applied physics. Those issues when reduced to simplified models can be understood by most persons who seriously want to understand. My target is to help those persons. NOT the so-called truthers who are locked in denial at any cost.
And the simplified models I employ are simplifications of the actual WTC collapse mechanisms. This should assist a person who needs to comprehend where all the bits of fundamentals into the overall complexity of the real WTC Twin Towers collapse events. They also target errors that I see repeated many times in these discussions.
The alternate approach, preferred by most members active in this sequence of Thomas B threads, is to bring in different models, different structures. Which adds another level of "translation" into an already complex situation. If the person you are trying to help cannot visualise a complex situation asking them to visualise an analogous but different bit of complexity is probably only adding to the confusion. (Yes it MAY occasionally help >> you just need to be alert to that in any ongoing live discussion. And that is not possible if we are in the "Dummy's Guide" book scenario. )
I'm not going to defend that answer for you, maybe ae911truth explains it better elsewhere on their site. I just found it for you.But why not just fly in planes and leave out the collapse? That would've been much easier and wouldn't leave any evidence that it was a set up. It wouldn't have been a big enough statement/gesture/excuse to go to war?
If you think that "the fuel" that fed the fires that caused the collapses was (only, or mostly) the jet fuel, then no, that is NOT the "official story". What would have made you think it is? Where did you read or hear that?
The video oversells what the Purdue project did and didn't show.Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVAzn1Yuz8
Maybe my interpretation of this wrong and I made a mistake, but all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between the theory of "natural collapse due to consequences of airplane hitting" and "collapse caused by a second party" (bombs or whatever the theories may be).
Another problem is that the terrorists weren't even from Iraq, the country the US subsequently went to war with.
The United States did go to war with Iraq soon enough. The Bush administration was eager to mobilize the anguish of the 9/11 attack to support the war. Despite the intelligence community’s unequivocal conclusion that Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al-Qaida, the administration let Americans believe the contrary.
Consequently, the United States went to war in Iraq on a false pretense that it was somehow avenging those killed by al-Qaida. A Washington Post poll conducted two years after 9/11 dramatically illustrated the story: 69% of Americans at the time believed Saddam Hussein was “personally” involved in the 9/11 attack. Even more staggering, 82% believed Saddam provided assistance to Osama bin Laden. Both were utterly false.
The arguments and elaborations for this are in the article, which I'm not putting here, since I cannot copy paste from that article, which means I have to type all of it myself (like I have with the above), which I won't.We suggest that the principal reason that three-quarters of the American public supported the war was that the Bush administration succesfully convinced them that a link existed between Saddam Hussein and terrorism generally, and between Sadam Hussein and al Qaeda specifically. Framing the war on Iraq in this way connected it intimately with 9/11, leading to levels of support for this war that stretched nearly as high as the levels of support for the war in Afghanistan.
President Bush never publicly blamed Saddam Hussein or Iraq for the events of September 11, but by consistently linking Iraq with terrorism and al Qaeda he provided the context from which such a connection could be made. Bush also never publicly connected Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda. Nevertheless, wether or not Bush connectd each dot from Saddam Hussein to bin Laden, the way language and transitions are shaped in his official speeches almost compelled listeners to infer a connection.
Gershkoff, Amy, and Shana Kushner. “Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no. 3, [American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press], 2005, pp. 525–37, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3689022.
I cannot copy paste from that article, which means I have to type all of it myself