Re: [Marxism] If Cheney & Co. Had Really

[Bob Hopson <bobhpsn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Shawn Redden, in an earlier post writes:

I know enough about steel to know that 2 planes cannot
bring 250 stories of it and concrete down into a heap
of ash.  It's simply not possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For me, this is a dividing line question between a
materialist/scientific view and political mythology. 
All the stuff about govt. conspiracies, Mossad agents,
NORAD standing down, etc. is conjecture, sometimes
even probable and believable conjecture, something
which can be debated forever the way the Kennedy
assassination is.

However, when it comes to the structural questions
about building collapse, there are many serious
attempts to understand how this happened. The website
http://www.debunking911.com/
has many article about molten steel, etc.  From what
I've read there and about the collapse of other steel
structures due to fire (see for example the March 26,
2004 NYT about a bridge collapse in Bridgeport, CT due
to a burning truck), there seems to be no need for any
explanation other than the planes for the WTC
collapse; all the "physically impossible" things can
be pretty well explained without resorting to secret
demolition teams bringing in tons of thermite in the
wee hours.  

For example this article:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
takes a close look at the "molten steel".  It's a much
more plausible explanation that the truth movement
puts out.

I think Occams' razor clearly applies here.  If
there's a scientifically solid explanation for the WTC
building collapses due to the planes, why keep
insisting on other explanations?  It doesn't seem rational.


      

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu