2 of 7
2
9/11 Conspiracy Theories are bullshit.
Posted: 22 June 2007 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2007-06-19

So what? You are telling me it was accidental, and have no way whatever of evaluation whether the next attack will be uncovered in time. All you have shown me is evidence, of what I said, incompetence. I dont *care* what the excuses were, or the bureacratic bungling. People still got killed. We have paid the CIA billions to be on top of the kinds of things you list, and it didnt prevent 911. What evidence do you have they have a handle on it now?

We have all these people coming across the border. Are any of them terrorists? Hello? We have container ships entering our harbors within nuke range with no idea what really is in them. I repeat: “national security” is an oxymoron. The warrior class cannot even protect their own asses much less the rest of us.

The rational policy would be to disperse critical parts of the economy and government out of the rich target zones, and leave them full of the welfare queens and other such poor people that the terrorists have nothing to gain from attacking. If they nuked some of the great cities, lotsa folks would think they are doing the republic a great favor by eliminating cesspools of crime and addiction.

But the mind set of the alpha male warrior class has always been to concentrate power. Its why Bush loves nuclear power plants despite the fact that the amortized cost per megawatt is much lower with windpower. It is that mindset which creates the vulnerability to WMD. Nor does it make sense to pack workers into high rise towers. You can only move them vertically at maybe 15 mph. A corporate campus on the urban fringe would be able to move more people faster at a much lower cost/sq foot for office space. But… there is no penthouse. Cheeze.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 03:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2007-06-19

If it was a conspiracy, how many people really needed to know, and how many were simply following orders, that albeit strange or otherwise illegal, seemed to come from the CIA or some other such, shall we say, “infallible intelligence” authority?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

Daybrown,

What I’m saying is that no complex conspiracy theory is required, as you seemed earlier to be suggesting. As for the security issue, I do think it will be forever imperfect. There is a tension between security and liberty, and we will always have to accept some risk in order to maintain freedom. But frankly the risk is, I think, vanishingly small for most Americans. We all know car accidents and falls in the bathtub are more likley to kill most of us than terrorist attacks. Part of the problemn 9/11 created was the hysterical fear of terrorism that led to people tolerating the evisceration of civil liberties, the nonsensical “war on terror” that has hurt so many more innocent people than terrorists and has only made us more hated and less safe. I think rational and measures precautions are a good idea, but close the borders and rearrange our society? Nothing rational about that!

And though it is only marginally relevant, I can’t resist pointing out that your attitude towards poverty is barbaric BS even less rational than your ideas about 9/11. But that’s another thread…

[ Edited: 23 June 2007 09:10 PM by mckenzievmd ]
 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19

If it were my goverment, I would see a clear diference between not being able to stop a group de suicide killers and hiring them to blow a couple of buildings with people inside, partly because the first thing could be fixed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2007 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2007-04-14
mckenzievmd - 22 June 2007 11:26 PM

...And saying “It just seems hard to believe” isn’t evidence either. Show that more is needed, that the simple story isn’t possible and then maybe I’ll listen to evidence (again, not murky innuendo) for alternative explanations.

Some people here don’t seem to understand what skepticism is. It is NOT automatically disbelieving the first and most obvious explanation for everything and looking for alternatives. It is not debunking something because you don’t like the person (or government) who says it. It is following the methods of science and the evidence o a reasonable but always provisional answer. There is no failure of skepticism in demanding sound arguments and real evidence before jettisoning the simple, obvious, and reasonable hypothesis above.

As I fell asleep last night, many thoughts centered on this topic: whose truth is THE truth and as you and others have said, how easily we can be “persuaded” and influenced by our cohorts. The thoughts spiraled. As i wrote previously, at first i did not want to believe what some people were writing. (the people you call those believing in a conspiracy theory).

Like you, the simplest answer seemed the most obvious. Thus, as in many cases before, on other topics, i began to read what “they” wrote, trying to find holes and things that did not match. I found some contradictions, but not many. As the years passed and more scientists, yes, scientists with experience in all the facts from aeronautics to engineering began to question the government version and pointed to all the things that were simply absurd, and backed it up and put their livelihoods on the line, i was becoming convinced that their version was far far more plausible. 

I went into the debate as a skeptic and learned (with great effort) to understand their arguments. A lot of physics i had never covered in school.

The other thought i had, had to do with belief systems and the process of persuasion, as in, how it worked with me, and how it might work for you.

How do you think you would feel, if you slowly or suddenly came to find out that what “we” are arguing, namely, that it was indeed an inside job, and really IS the truth? How would you explain your previous stance? would you then also try to convince others to how you came to the truth after having been mistaken?
(Note: i went through this, and i told all those who were willing to hear me out, that i had been mistaken. It was not easy.)

Because there has been recent talk about how people perceive the role of government and persuasion since the death of Waldheim in my country, that too occupied me. I still hear to this day from people in their 80’s and 90’s who will say adamantly: “we didn’t know what happened to the Jews, we thought they all emigrated”. I find it hard to believe, but maybe they are telling the truth. I asked a few, what did you feel or think when you found out? almost all said, at first disbelief and or shock that people they knew had that happen to them or worse, were the perpetrators.

In closing, i must point out that i might not be able to reply right away as i am headed out to a well-deserved holiday. But will attempt to follow up in about a months’ time.
many summerly greetings…

[ Edited: 24 June 2007 09:28 AM by fragen ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2007 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
fragen - 21 June 2007 06:25 PM

...those of us, like myself, who do believe that the “9/11” events were an inside job…

Could you please elaborate as to who exactly you think carried out the attacks, and what was their reason for doing so?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2007 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

Here is my response from a similar topic under social and political issues…

Charles - 28 June 2007 02:05 PM

I spent 3 months of my life responding to a seemingly endless trail of e-mails from my Brother on this subject.

My Brother is a self proclaimed Libertarian.  He has aligned himself with the likes of Alex Jones & Co.  A group of veteran conspiracy theorists, who are radical anti-government Libertarians that have consistently used fear of government, foreigners and even hate mongering to further their cause.

Here are some links I prepared along with one of many responses I drafted during that 3 months….


http://www.911myths.com

http://www.debunking911.com/

It is wise, however, to approach new utterances by a known loon with skepticism. That is merely common sense.

Do not underestimate a veteran skeptic’s ability to accurately and consistently detect bullshit on very little data. There are clearly many such veteran skeptics out there and if they fail to jump up and refute every claim presented, it lends zero credibility to said claims. The burden of proof is always upon the claimant.

Ok, it appears that you did not follow the links I sent.  There are many sources that dispute almost every basis for the conspiracy theory.  I seem to be able to find them easily and the authors of a couple of the links I sent have spent the time to consolidate and present the point by point rebuttals to individual claims.

Here is one from popular mechanics

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

And unlike much of the information quoted by the conspiracy theorists, all the sources are clearly identified.

Another thing that bothers me.  If you were to accept these claims as stated by the 9/11 truth organization at face value without attempting to debunk them, there are many things that just don’t make sense.

For example.  Assuming there were incindiary devices planted in the WTC and “building 7”, and they were cleverly designed to go off on command at times coinciding with the plane crashes, what evidence leads you to the government as the instigator?

From what I heard in the discussion, we are asked to not only believe the depictions of the events in accordance with the conspiracy theory, but we are also being asked to swallow the idea of a “shadow government”.

And from other Alex Jones & Co. broadcasts and writings I know that this ultimately leads to Illuminate and Reptilian Aliens from outer space!

And you want me to leap into that pool?!!!

And here is another interesting contradiction/observation:

“I currently work on boiler control systems.

I also worked in the steel industry for 5 years. Most of that was at a hot rolling mill. The steel slabs were heated for the rolling process to make the steel easier to process.

Before that I worked for a company that built industrial furnaces. Mostly for heat-treating engine and transmission parts. I also commissioned an aluminum-melting furnace.

I do have a background in military demolitions. I was a combat engineer. Not quite the same thing as the folks that bring down buildings, but I understand the concept well enough.

But I am not a structural engineer. I have a BS in electrical engineering technology. (Not an EE. Less math in my degree.)

During basic training, we “watched” a demonstration where a thermite grenade was used to destroy some old radio equipment. I put watched in quotes because we had to turn our heads away from the flash. The Flash went on for over a minute. The stands we were in were only about 20 yards from where the grenade was set off. Thermite is NOT and explosive. It is an incendiary chemical combination that produces great amounts of heat. But it takes a short time to heat up and does not act instantaneously. Real explosives are consumed in a fraction of a second.

The whole idea behind controlled demolition is to use limited amounts of fast acting explosives with precise timing on already weakened structures. Thermite is not what they use. IIRC, the explosives used for such things are the same ones NASA used in explosive bolts on spacecraft. Very fast acting. Much faster than traditional military explosives. Arguments claiming that the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition and involved the use of thermite are contradictory right from the start. “

Guy Noir - on skepticforum.com

——

Bottom line, it seems that the techniques being used by these organizations is to develop theories that are complex and woven together using many mis-conceptions, mis-quotes and factually incorrect depictions of events.  So many that it would take real dedication to dispute them all.

Not to mention that once refuted, they simply invent new theories that implicate the “devils” they are after and ask that you spend more time debunking those.

However, in my mind enough has already been refuted to disway me from the task.

Not to mention the credibility of the people at the forefront of these theories have already made statements that damage their credibility.

Each of the panelists in the discussion is either trying to sell movies, books or pursue political ambitions that would benefit greatly from leagues of followers.

Most of the people in the audience that had “questions” were selling something themselves.  Sounds a lot like the peddlers you find selling UFO and Big Foot stuff.

There was a 22 year old kid that got a terrific round of applause during the question and answer period.  He was a high school student when 9/11 happened and by his own admission, knew little of what the government did or how it worked at the time.  But now, I guess he is an expert, and renowned among his peers at this conference.  I think this says a lot.

One guy got up and listed more than 40 liberal/left wing “Gate Keepers” (news sources) that need to be shut down or turned around to thier way of thinking.  Is this the kind of “research” technique that was used to come up with these theories?  Sounds all too familiar, ignore the contradictions, kill the messenger, full speed ahead.

There was no one at the conference with a contrary opinion ready to refute anything they said.  This is no surpirise, I suspect if there was one they would have been swiftly lead away, just like a protester at a Bush speach.  Perhaps those with contrary opinions had a forum 15 miles away in a protest area?

I honestly think you would be better off looking for truth elsewhere.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2007 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2007-06-11

This is a pretty interesting topic for me personally. I’ve always thought of myself as a fairly incredulous person, but I was taken when I first watched Loose Change. I’ve been way into anti-authoritarian, anti-government Punk music since I was a teenager, and I think that this kind of thing just played perfectly into that part of my personality. I went about sending the link to the Loose Change video and other sites to friends and talking to them about it as I tend to do when I find something particularly interesting.

It was months later when I read the Skeptics Society article on the 9/11 conspiracy theories that I started to turn around. It gave me a lot of information that was missing in the conspiracy theory arguments. For example that the heat of the fires in the buildings was not hot enough to melt steel, but it was hot enough to weaken it significantly. At least for me when I consider the nature of metal that makes a ton of sense.

Anyway, I can understand how someone who is already critical of the government wouldn’t find it hard to make that leap. I’ve done it, and I came back from it. I still think there are a lot of damn good reasons not to trust the government, and the current administration especially. We need to look critically at how something like 9/11 happens, and what mistakes were made. Everything should be done to answer the questions presented by the 9/11 truth folks, and Loose Change, and I think a lot already has been done. I just worry that this will become another Kennedy assassination, and no matter how many times the questions are answered they’ll keep popping back up.

 Signature 

“The language and concepts contained herein are guaranteed not to cause eternal torment in the place where the guy with the horns and pointed stick conducts his business.”—Frank Zappa

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2007 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

I think what is different about this is the complexity and depth of the accusations made my the conspiracy theorists.  Checkout the Zeitgeist the Movie thread here you’ll see how they have tied the 9/11 conspiracy into all aspects of life.

My concern is for how this has the potential for creating an alternate reality for a lot of people that is potentially an even stronger influence than some religions.  The evidence for this is the endless parade of access cable tv shows, independent films, radio programs, conventions and web sites that tout these theories.

However, just as we use the flying teapot example as a means of demonstrating how nonsensical it is to hold up God as a fact, we should question this conspiracy theory in the same way.  The real problem is that the evidence used by conspiracy theorists has some foundation in reality.  It is what they have built on that foundation, based on conjecture, innuendo, and hearsay that deserves scrutiny.  This makes the effort of weeding out the truth from all the myth more difficult.

I too have a lot of questions about the Bush Administration and what they are really up to.  Their perpetual efforts to thwart oversight are more than reasonable cause for concern. They are certainly up to no good, if they are that concerned about us knowing what they are up to.

My biggest concern is the compelling nature of these theories and the way they have successfully used the legitimate distrust of the Bush Administration as a means of furthering their agenda.

In fact, Zeitgeist the Movie is even appealing to Atheists as they have incorporated a very reasoned examination of Christian (and other) Religions and their correlation to ancient Sun Gods, and their use as a means of controlling the masses.  I too felt the beginnings of sympathy for their cause as I watched that portion of the film.

My debates with my Brother continue to this day.  He is a smart guy, and yet his anger at the government blinds him to the truth behind some of the claims associated with these theories.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2007 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

Give me unanswered questions that the Truth Movement has raised, and I’ll check it out.

I haven’t Actually seen anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement bring this up specifically though it might be inferred from other things.  Why can’t we get the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor of the building?  This kind of info should be needed to resolve the question of how the buildings collapsed in less than 12 seconds.  Even if the mass above the impact zone fell on the mass below, how could it disintegrate that fast?

You mite look into the studies on group think, and consider how the craft of manipulating the reality of the masses has come since the days of Augustus and Machiavelli. If whatever group you are a part of, has for whatever reason, explained to itself what it thot happened, you will be very hard put to arrive at an independent rational conclusion. That is just the way hominid minds work.

But the question is which group is actually stupid?  The one that can believe the laws of physics can be defied?

In the almost SIX YEARS since the incident have you heard how many tons of steel were on the floors where the planes hit?  Shouldn’t it be possible to figure that out from the original design plans made in the ‘60’s?  But whatever it was turned to licorice.  YEAH RIGHT! 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2007 10:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

psikeyhackr -

Why is that value (tons of steel on the floors where the planes hit) of any relevance to you?  Are you an engineer?

What laws of physics are being defied?  I mean specifically, with the relevant numbers plugged into the relevant equations.

fragen -

What physics were you introduced to that you didn’t learn in school?  And how were they relevant to your analysis of what happened on 9/11?

For whoever -

If you think that the craft of manipulating the population is so advanced, then what makes you so special that you see the truth so clearly?  Where did you get your special, non-governmental truth from?  Why should I trust that source over any other source?  Why should I be less skeptical of a source simply because it purports to be “unofficial”?  Why shouldn’t I assume that anyone who has anything to say about 9/11 is part of a conspiracy seeking to do its own manipulating?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 01:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

Why is that value (tons of steel on the floors where the planes hit) of any relevance to you?  Are you an engineer?

What laws of physics are being defied?  I mean specifically, with the relevant numbers plugged into the relevant equations.


There is this phenomenon known as gravity.  It has this peculiar behavior of pulling material toward the largest accumulation of matter in the vicinity.  Human beings were building things to withstand the force of gravity long before Isaac Newton arrived on the scene.  Things like the Taj Mahal and the Parthenon.

Now the World Trade Center was 110 stories tall and the 109th floor had to be strong enough to hold the weight of the 110th floor.  The 108th floor had to be strong enough to hold the combined weight of the 109th and 110th floors.  So obviously as you go down the building every floor had to hold the weight of the dead load and live load of all of the floors above. 

Now I don’t think a person needs to be a structural engineer to understand that.

I went to college for Electrical Engineering and I didn’t know what a live load was, at least not in relation to buildings, when I started reading the NIST reports.

But the Empire State building was sure as hell built before the invention of the transistor.

Now the NIST report does not even specify the quantity of concrete in the WTC but it says one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9 tons. 

Now you can believe a 166 ton plane containing 34 tons of kerosene, sometimes known as jet fuel which must burn hotter, and traveling 500 mph can knock down a 500,000 ton building containing 100,000 tons of steel and 280,000 tons of concrete level to the ground in less then 103 minutes if you want.  But before I believe enough steel turned into licorice to make it possible for the building to collapse the morons talking that trash better have an intelligent and reasonable answer to every question I ask. 

Since the people who designed the buildings in the 1960’s presumably knew about that gravity phenomenon and since the buildings withstood said gravity for 25+ years then presumably they put at least the minimum necessary quantity of steel and concrete on each floor.  I would expect that information to be in the original documentation so the people at NIST who claim to be “world renowned scientists and engineers” and who took 3 years and $20,000,000 to produce 11,300 pages should be able to come up with the 234 numbers necessary to specify the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on each floor and basement of the WTC.

That is, of course, if they can get your permission.

psik

[ Edited: 17 July 2007 02:22 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

When you use a phrase like “knock down” and “steel turned into licorice” I think I am justified in questioning your analysis.  The buildings were no “knocked down” by any stretch of the imagination.  They were damaged severely, then suffered severe fire damage, then failed.  No steel turned into “licorice”.  Some structural elements were severed by the impact.  Some elements were weakened by fire to where they lost a significant amount of their tensile strength, leading to them being too weak to perform the function they were intended to (some being overloaded due to damage caused by the crashes themselves, even before being weakened by fire).

I think you have to have some knowledge of structural engineering to understand how these buildings were designed to take loads, and how they differed significantly from most tall buildings, and how the structure was affected by the planes crashing into them, if you want to say anything intelligible about why and how they failed.  I also think that the less knowledge of structural engineering that you have, the more easily you might resort to fanciful and spurious speculation.

The towers were designed to withstand gravity and wind, not being crashed into by airliners.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
psikeyhackr - 17 July 2007 01:26 AM

...I didn’t know what a live load was, at least not in relation to buildings, when I started reading the NIST reports.

Translation: “I don’t know what the hell I am talking about.”

psikeyhackr - 17 July 2007 01:26 AM

But the Empire State building was sure as hell built before the invention of the transistor.

The B-25 propeller driven airplane that hit the Empire State Building was also traveling around 200 MPH, whereas the first jet that hit the WTC was traveling around 429 mph while the second jet was traveling around 537 MPH.  It can be noted (but only to us sane people) that the building hit by the slower moving jet took longer to collapse, while the building hit by the faster plane collapsed quicker.  That was some mighty fine planning by whoever planned 9/11 (you still won’t say who you think “knocked down” the WTC) to plan the first building to get hit by a slower moving jet and take longer to collapse while simultaneously planning for the second building to collapse faster and to get hit with a faster moving jet!  These nefarious people thought of everything!  rolleyes 

Speed wasn’t the only difference between the plane accidentally hitting the Empire State Building and the jets purposefully hitting the WTC Towers while revving their engines at the last second…

Here is a B-25:

B25-2.jpg


Here is a Boeing 767-223ER:

american762.jpg

Once again, sane people (so psikeyhackr, you can ignore the pictures) will notice a size difference between the two.  Hmmm, larger mass, moving faster….I wonder if that could have something to do with the collapse of the buildings?  rolleyes

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

I guess you haven’t been paying much attention to this business if you didn’t recognize where the “licorice” term came from.

James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into [b[“licorice.”

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-NIST-Lies30mar06.htm

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2