Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by troutman

Good conspiracy theory = oxymoron

Not really. People accept conspiracy theories as truth all the time. It just depends which side of the conspiracy you are on as to whether you take the theory as fact or consider it a whacky theory.

These are not competing "theories" worthy of equal attention. Creationists make this kind of argument, thinking that creationism is an alternative theory worthy of equal consideration as evolution. It is not a theory at all.

Actually, it is all theory and conjecture. If there was this vast body of evidence the theory would wilt and die on the vine. The fact that there are still so many holes in both theories makes them open to endless discussion. You saying otherwise does not change that fact and only supports my original post.

That 19 terrorists carried out the attacks on 9/11 is a fact supported by the evidence. That the US government participated or was complicit, is not supported by evidence.

Again, your support of one theory over the other just points out your embracing of one mythology over another. You have no idea what the facts are in this instance because so many of them are not provable. It is simple to burst your illusion of truth by pointing out that the other theory can point to several of the individuals identified as the hijackers are still alive and walking the streets. That is a cold hard fact that brings into question the validity of the evidence you cling to. That in itself should be enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the validity of the rest of the supposed evidence. Of course the same examination of the evidence on the other side requires some leaps as well, which is why I say the truth is somewhere in the middle and something we will never know.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by COGENT

I'm not a huge conspiracy theory guy, I tend to simplify stuff down to logic. With that said, I have always questioned how all the buildings collapsed straight down in New York. I can't logically see how that is not a massive coincidence. All the videos out there of witnesses talking about other explosions doesn't help this.

I'm just wondering what you think "should've" happened?

I only have a very rudimentary understanding of materials and structures (much less one as complex as the WTC), but it really feels to me it fell exactly the way it was supposed to when it gets hit by an airliner that is not big enough to shear it completely, but is big enough to weaken supports to just past their breaking points.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

Not really. People accept conspiracy theories as truth all the time. It just depends which side of the conspiracy you are on as to whether you take the theory as fact or consider it a whacky theory.



Actually, it is all theory and conjecture. If there was this vast body of evidence the theory would wilt and die on the vine. The fact that there are still so many holes in both theories makes them open to endless discussion. You saying otherwise does not change that fact and only supports my original post.



Again, your support of one theory over the other just points out your embracing of one mythology over another. You have no idea what the facts are in this instance because so many of them are not provable. It is simple to burst your illusion of truth by pointing out that the other theory can point to several of the individuals identified as the hijackers are still alive and walking the streets. That is a cold hard fact that brings into question the validity of the evidence you cling to. That in itself should be enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the validity of the rest of the supposed evidence. Of course the same examination of the evidence on the other side requires some leaps as well, which is why I say the truth is somewhere in the middle and something we will never know.

1. No there are not "still so many holes". There are very few holes or arguments that support the conspiracy theories that are even remotely sup[ported by reasonable evidence. Take a look at the the genius arguments in this thread and the associated links. 99% of it is absolute garbage that lacks any tie to reality.

2. In regards to the second highlighted portion, see my last two senteces above.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by COGENT

I'm not a huge conspiracy theory guy, I tend to simplify stuff down to logic. With that said, I have always questioned how all the buildings collapsed straight down in New York. I can't logically see how that is not a massive coincidence. All the videos out there of witnesses talking about other explosions doesn't help this.

Whatever the truth is, it's terrifying.

Totally agree, like Magnets, how the hell do they work?

I cant see any strings or anything like that.

And why are all the poles either North or South and there are no East or West magnets?

The training in my Commerce degree provided no explanation for these things and logically they make no sense to me.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by valo403

1. No there are not "still so many holes". There are very few holes or arguments that support the conspiracy theories that are even remotely sup[ported by reasonable evidence. Take a look at the the genius arguments in this thread and the associated links. 99% of it is absolute garbage that lacks any tie to reality.

Why, because you say so? I would like to know what expertise you have to make such broad sweeping statements? You have no access to the evidence on either side of the argument so I find it curious how you can make such an incredible claim. Is it gut feel, or just the incredible truthfulness the government displayed in the years that followed that make you so committed to defending a flawed story?

2. In regards to the second highlighted portion, see my last two senteces above.

That proved nothing except that you are clinging to the myth and narrative as I had suggested. Video exists of several of the hijackers, alive and walking around discussing issues weeks after their supposed deaths. Seems that punches a pretty big hole in the nice tidy little narrative you swallowed whole as truth does it not? Of course it doesn't, because you choose to ignore these facts because they don't fit with your narrative or myth.

Conspiracy theories, on both sides, are interesting because people are willing to defend them without second thought or doing any investigation or research of their own. My favorite conspiracy theory, one accepted as fact in our society, was the fallacy of WMDs in Iraq. That had quite a bit of support at the time, even though the empirical evidence said otherwise. I bet I know which side of the fence you were on at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if you still cling to that failed narrative because there was so much convincing evidence presented by the most trustworthy of sources.

It is interesting that with all of the lies that have come to the surface from this period in history that people still do not even second guess the validity of the information reported at the time of the attacks.

[COGENT]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm just wondering what you think "should've" happened?

I only have a very rudimentary understanding of materials and structures (much less one as complex as the WTC), but it really feels to me it fell exactly the way it was supposed to when it gets hit by an airliner that is not big enough to shear it completely, but is big enough to weaken supports to just past their breaking points.

I am no way an expert, nor do I pretend to be. But to answer the question what I think "shoud've" happened. To start, Neither of the planes hit straight on and they hit near the tops of the buildings. I would think that if anything, the top of the building would tip to one side either breaking off or causing the rest of the building to tilt to one side while collapsing. I guess my idea of this comes from something as simple as jenga or a tree being chopped. take out one side of it, it falls to the side. Although I do understand that the engineering of two of the largest buildings in the world and jenga are very different.

Furthermore. How does a fire on the 93rd floor cause building to completely collapse in on itself within an hour and thirteen minutes? I would think that this would require serious structural problems throughout the whole building below the 93rd floor. You would think if the buildings were desinged/able to withstand a plane flying into it at 500 mph it could handle a fire on 6 of it's floors and not weaken it's structural strength throughout the building.

Again, not and engineer/expert. I just find it odd that two almost identical buildings are hit by different planes in different parts of the buildings and yet they both fall perfectly straight down.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

. You have no idea what the facts are in this instance because so many of them are not provable. It is simple to burst your illusion of truth by pointing out that the other theory can point to several of the individuals identified as the hijackers are still alive and walking the streets. That is a cold hard fact that brings into question the validity of the evidence you cling to.

Except that its not a cold hard fact, there seems to be a lot of mistaken identity and a strong lack of fact checking in terms of those terrorists still being anywhere near alive.


http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaz...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/ahmed_a...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/khalid_...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/mohammed_atta_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/said_al-ghamdi_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/salem_a...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wail_al...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/mohand_...ill_alive.html

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

Why, because you say so? I would like to know what expertise you have to make such broad sweeping statements? You have no access to the evidence on either side of the argument so I find it curious how you can make such an incredible claim. Is it gut feel, or just the incredible truthfulness the government displayed in the years that followed that make you so committed to defending a flawed story?



That proved nothing except that you are clinging to the myth and narrative as I had suggested. Video exists of several of the hijackers, alive and walking around discussing issues weeks after their supposed deaths. Seems that punches a pretty big hole in the nice tidy little narrative you swallowed whole as truth does it not? Of course it doesn't, because you choose to ignore these facts because they don't fit with your narrative or myth.

Conspiracy theories, on both sides, are interesting because people are willing to defend them without second thought or doing any investigation or research of their own. My favorite conspiracy theory, one accepted as fact in our society, was the fallacy of WMDs in Iraq. That had quite a bit of support at the time, even though the empirical evidence said otherwise. I bet I know which side of the fence you were on at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if you still cling to that failed narrative because there was so much convincing evidence presented by the most trustworthy of sources.

It is interesting that with all of the lies that have come to the surface from this period in history that people still do not even second guess the validity of the information reported at the time of the attacks.

I suppose all Arabs look alike, right?

BTW, you have no idea what side of the fence I fell on for anything, thanks though. I was actually quite certain that the US evidence of WMD's was suspect, largely because I listened to the analysis of ACTUAL EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. It's that same whacky approach that I've taken to come to the conclusion that people who disregard an overwhelming mass of evidence and expert opinion in forming their belief that the US government murdered 3,000 are certifiably insane.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by COGENT

I am no way an expert, nor do I pretend to be. But to answer the question what I think "shoud've" happened. To start, Neither of the planes hit straight on and they hit near the tops of the buildings. I would think that if anything, the top of the building would tip to one side either breaking off or causing the rest of the building to tilt to one side while collapsing. I guess my idea of this comes from something as simple as jenga or a tree being chopped. take out one side of it, it falls to the side. Although I do understand that the engineering of two of the largest buildings in the world and jenga are very different.

Furthermore. How does a fire on the 93rd floor cause building to completely collapse in on itself within an hour and thirteen minutes? I would think that this would require serious structural problems throughout the whole building below the 93rd floor. You would think if the buildings were desinged/able to withstand a plane flying into it at 500 mph it could handle a fire on 6 of it's floors and not weaken it's structural strength throughout the building.

Again, not and engineer/expert. I just find it odd that two almost identical buildings are hit by different planes in different parts of the buildings and yet they both fall perfectly straight down.

There's a post earlier in this thread that fully explains the scenario from an engineering/structural point of view.

And you were playing Jenga wrong. You take the blocks from the bottom and you put them on top, not from 2/3 of the way up.

[COGENT]

Originally Posted by firebug

Totally agree, like Magnets, how the hell do they work?

I cant see any strings or anything like that.

And why are all the poles either North or South and there are no East or West magnets?

The training in my Commerce degree provided no explanation for these things and logically they make no sense to me.

Exactly.... magnets.... what's their deal anyways?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by COGENT

I am no way an expert, nor do I pretend to be. But to answer the question what I think "shoud've" happened. To start, Neither of the planes hit straight on and they hit near the tops of the buildings. I would think that if anything, the top of the building would tip to one side either breaking off or causing the rest of the building to tilt to one side while collapsing. I guess my idea of this comes from something as simple as jenga or a tree being chopped. take out one side of it, it falls to the side. Although I do understand that the engineering of two of the largest buildings in the world and jenga are very different.

Furthermore. How does a fire on the 93rd floor cause building to completely collapse in on itself within an hour and thirteen minutes? I would think that this would require serious structural problems throughout the whole building below the 93rd floor. You would think if the buildings were desinged/able to withstand a plane flying into it at 500 mph it could handle a fire on 6 of it's floors and not weaken it's structural strength throughout the building.

Again, not and engineer/expert. I just find it odd that two almost identical buildings are hit by different planes in different parts of the buildings and yet they both fall perfectly straight down.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Read the explanations on the links to the twin towers, speed of collapse, use of squibs etc.

I don't use this site exclusively but it sums up a lot of the books and investigative transcripts that I read.

The Popular Mechanics article is also quite excellent.

[Flabbibulin]

With all due respect to the 9/11 conspiracists on here and out there, why do you constantly use the "this doesn't behave or react in a manner that I expect it to" argument?? This is analogous to someone looking outside and saying the world is flat because that is how I see it. Fortunately, we have something called experts in this world, who help explain why something reacts or occurs in a manner you "don't expect it to". So, it's great if you want to drum up all of the formulas and scientific laws explaining why steel should only melt at certain temperatures, how the towers should only fall at a certain speed... But please don't use the "it doesn't do what my limited understanding expects it to" argument... It really is amazing how often people will look at the evnts of 9/11 and say "well I don't think a plane crash can cause a 110 story building to collapse", or "That looks like a controlled demolition, so it must be so"... Let's leave the explanation to experts who will very precisely prove, with science, whether something is possible.

And believe me, if conspiracy theorists would understand this concept, we would have a lot fewer arguments out there with regards to 9/11- CP users and non-users alike.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

With all due respect to the 9/11 conspiracists on here and out there, why do you constantly use the "this doesn't behave or react in a manner that I expect it to" argument?? This is analogous to someone looking outside and saying the world is flat because that is how I see it. Fortunately, we have something called experts in this world, who help explain why something reacts or occurs in a manner you "don't expect it to". So, it's great if you want to drum up all of the formulas and scientific laws explaining why steel should only melt at certain temperatures, how the towers should only fall at a certain speed... But please don't use the "it doesn't do what my limited understanding expects it to" argument... It really is amazing how often people will look at the evnts of 9/11 and say "well I don't think a plane crash can cause a 110 story building to collapse", or "That looks like a controlled demolition, so it must be so"... Let's leave the explanation to experts who will very precisely prove, with science, whether something is possible.

And believe me, if conspiracy theorists would understand this concept, we would have a lot fewer arguments out there with regards to 9/11- CP users and non-users alike.

Thanks X 10000000

Best post in this thread.

Now if we could only apply the same logic to religion with its concocting fairy tales to explain the un-explainable, this world would start getting a lot better.

[dissentowner]

It was not Al Quaida nor the U.S government, it was obviously aliens!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It was not Al Quaida nor the U.S government, it was obviously aliens!

Clearly not, they're too busy probin and cattle mutilatin to knock down the towers.

It was David Icke

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

[NBC]

Originally Posted by Nuje

The twin towers were "designed to withstand a plane crash" Maybe a cessna. Not a jet airliner at those speeds. Even if they "Designed it to stay intact", it just wouldn't. Your car is designed to protect you in a highway crash, but if you hit a semi going 110km/h, your odds are not good. It is near impossible for any structure to withstand that. They don't build them to because unless it's a deliberate terrorist act, it's not going to happen. That will not happen by accident.

Actually they were designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707, which was the predominant long-haul jet aircraft in operation when the towers were constructed. The problem was that AA 11 and UA 175 were Boeing 767-200 series aircraft that had a max fuel capacity of close to 24 000 US gallons, roughly 10 000 more US gallons than a standard 707 and double that of a 757-200. It had everything to do with the quantity of fuel and heat of the fire.

[Phaneuf3]

I think another element of this whole thing is what TV has made some people think science is like.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that its not a cold hard fact, there seems to be a lot of mistaken identity and a strong lack of fact checking in terms of those terrorists still being anywhere near alive.


http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaz...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/ahmed_a...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/khalid_...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/mohammed_atta_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/said_al-ghamdi_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/salem_a...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wail_al...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_...ill_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/mohand_...ill_alive.html

Thanks for the links. They're interesting but they really don't prove anything more than the links that the truthers are using in this thread. They pose a premise and then make a definitive claim at the end of the page even though they have no evidence one way or the other.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject matter, but I have to know why this is so important to you that you would try and convert someone to your position with so much vigor? As you mentioned to another poster, you're not changing your mind so why do you think other people should change theirs to align with your perspective?

As I said earlier, the truth is somewhere between your narrative and that of the truthers. I have no idea where that truth is but I am certain neither camp is correct in their assumptions of what happened on that September morning. What I am 100% certain of is that the details of the story behind the attacks broke way too early, with too many concrete details, and the government in power at the time had trouble with the truth. That in itself is more than enough to know that the official story is not what it appears and not worthy of recognizing at truth.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

What I am 100% certain of is that the details of the story behind the attacks broke way too early, with too many concrete details, and the government in power at the time had trouble with the truth. That in itself is more than enough to know that the official story is not what it appears and not worthy of recognizing at truth.

So you are saying the media was in on it too? Just clarifying here.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It was David Icke

Speaking of subscribing to unique narratives and myths.

Wouldn't it be something if he was on the money and it was those of us who think he's a bit batty who are out to lunch. Remember, many great thinkers of their times were considered heretics or loons.