9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    And again, looking further along their display - there is no doubt whatsoever that the air path of the 757 would have been no trouble whatsoever to perform. I have seen planes do exactly that. Look at it yourself. 10 Gs my arse.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You may continue to do so. I will continue to do otherwise. Wikipedia defines a conspiracy theory as:
    ************************************************
    A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations.
    ************************************************

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

    Whether the 'powerful or influential people or organizations' were Al Qaeda, elements of the US government, or a combination of the 2, it makes no difference; they're all conspiracy theories and should all be treated as such.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Why so? I mean, why so specifically in the case of Al Qaeda? You could say they're a group of conspirators, but that's not the conventional meaning these days.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    That’s fine, just as long as you don’t keep reminding of your definition. You know what I am referring to from now on.
     
  8. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Wow! That sounds about as convincing as Jesus raising from the dead and flying off to heaven!

    I hate to sound sane here, but how easy is it to plant wreckage from a 757 throughout the logical path of destruction before people arrive on the scene? How easy is it to get 136 eye witnesses to lie? How easy is it to knock over numerous lamp posts with something other than a plane without people blowing the cover? How easy is it to cause damage to a generator off to the side of the impact without the cover being blown? How easy is it to make an American Airlines jet and its passengers vanish without a trace and leave more than enough evidence behind to fool everyone (even the airline and the ATC) that it hit the Pentagon?

    Admit it Scott, you have lost this point. AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

    You would make a horrible detective if you would rely on video evidence of a crime and ignore all other evidence.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Not by a long shot. You have only to look at a thread like the following:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg1

    As for me, I suppose you could say I'm a little tired of all of this. People who refuse to seriously look at the reams of evidence against the official story may never be persuaded and I have other things I want to do with my life besides endlessly present said evidence.
     
  10. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    We have been looking at it and we have been trying to show you what is wrong with it...
     
  11. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
  12. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    First off...there's a difference between personal interpretation and opinion, and evidence...and I've never refused to look at your "reams of evidence". I just find it unfeasible, improbable, and in some cases, down right ridiculous.

    The link you provided presents a theory based solely on eyewitness testimony..which by it's very nature is not 100%. Over a 100 people saw the events at the Pentagon, but not everyone saw the same thing...which is what you would expect...the human brain is not a video recorder. The person who wrote this post uses the testimony of a few witnesses, to prove their point, but then totally disregards the testimony of other witnesses that saw something totally different. They also made no to attempt to try to offer a theory on WHY the Lizaroid cabal would have done a flyover, and if it wasn't a plane, then what made the big hole in the Pentagon.

    Maybe it would be best if you just go back to your 911 forums, where you can be comfortable with others who believe as you...because you no chance of convincing anyone on this board to change their beliefs with a bunch of junk opinion....about the same change of me winning the lottery while being struck similtaneously by two separate bolts of lightning, while having group sex with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Scott, we've been giving you reams of solid, reasonable counterargument. Yet, I had a suspicion it would eventually come to this. Allow me to summarize your experience of SciForums thus far:

    What you came here originally to do was to "spread the good news" and hope it would be received less critically, getting more people on the 9/11 Troof bandwagon with a few links and some comments by people you consider the ultimate authority, much as an evangelical Christian would refer me back to Pat Robertson when confronted with convincing refutations of his arguments, or a Wahabbi would refer me back to some shiekh or mullah. You expected some discussion, sure; but you feel the evidence you have is convincing and sensible.

    Yet, we do not.

    We are, by nature, critical creatures; slow to believe and quick to find fault. And this is generally a good thing - each person should be permitted to make up their mind.

    I know you're considering making an exit now from the thread, since you have used what you consider the best arguments available to you and since you are a believer - and I use that term not unkindly - in the grand 9/11 mystery of some kind or other. Now, I don't doubt there are some facts we're simply not aware of in all this; this, of course, would be politics. Yet to ascribe them - as is done by the Troof Movement - to an inner conspiracy is nonsense; the evidence is spotty at best and some of the arguments are completely misleading or outright falsification ("the Towers fell in free fall", "no plane hit the Pentagon", "a plane leveling out to hit the Pentagon would be at 10Gs", and so forth). Your adopted tactic was the "polite rebuttal", which is a fine platform, but is still a position for the delivery of rhetoric, not factual debate. We have illustrated numerous problems with the issue of the "conspiracy", from steel melting and warping in gasoline fires to the absurd mathematics being used by the Troofers (including pilots, no less), the clear identification of the Saudi terrorists and the very plausible eyewitness accounts that correspond with the actual events. Yet, you prefer to gloss by these, rather than confronting them head-on, as we have done, in fairness.

    I don't doubt you believe very strongly in your position, and it is in a way admirable that you have such strong convictions. Yet, they fail to keep pace with the facts of the event. No one is denying you the right of your own beliefs - the problem is when personal belief is being used to dictate politics in a manner insensate of fact. (This is not a failing only of the Troof movement, but is found the width and breadth of political discourse.) I would ask you to reconsider your position and urge you again to consider the alternative, "Official" explanation. You really have nothing to lose by so doing.

    In any event, best wishes and good luck to you,

    Geoff
     
  14. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    You rock, Geoff...very well put.

    I think I have a "man crush" on you now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    There's a lot of information out there, both for the official theory and for alternate theories. I admit that I haven't always been right; the idea of a missile hitting the pentagon now appears to me to be false. However, as I have always mentioned, my forte has been the WTC collapses, not the pentagon crash. However, I have been building my knowledge of the pentagon crash and now feel that there is a fair amount of evidence purporting that:
    (a) there is eyewitness testimony that makes it clear that the plane did not come from the direction the official story states and

    (b) if it did not do so, there is no way that it could have hit the pentagon, because the damage was made in such a way to make it impossible to have been from the actual angle it came in.

    So what did the damage? Apparently, explosives. I had heard that explosives had been used there before, but I had thought that it was in conjunction with a craft (in the past, I thought it was a missile). The one thing in my belief on the pentagon damage that hasn't changed, however, is that the damage done to the pentagon could not have been from a plane.

    Anyway, I encourage you to see:
    The Pentagon (Smoking Gun Version):
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Alright, I've seen the CIT movie, something I'm not sure you have. There is only one way you can interpret what they're saying. And that is that the official story's idea of its flight path is completely wrong. What's more, the official story makes it clear that it is the -only- path that could have been taken in order to do the damage that the pentagon sustained. Given these 2 facts, what is one left to conclude? The damage done was calculated to appear as if a plane had crashed from the official direction. It has been argued that it could have been done with explosives.
     
  17. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Except for the small problem that the witnesses they spoke to say that they saw the 757 hit the pentagon...

    The CIT guys ignore this.
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I've noticed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Yes, I have been considering making an exit.. however, I keep on thinking on all the consequences of the events on 9/11 and find myself back here, looking for new ways to persuade you guys that the official story is wrong...

    As in, the politicians don't want us to know certain facts?


    As you know, I completely disagree with the idea that the evidence is 'spotty'. However, it appears that you seem to be saying that some of the evidence sounds credible; is that what you're saying?


    They fell at close to free fall speed. That's a fact.


    I believe the evidence solidly backs this claim.


    I've seen this argument. However, I admit that at present, I don't understand the maths used.


    The term 'rhetoric' can mean many things. However, I would certainly argue that my theories are based on what I believe the evidence is pointing towards.


    I have produced a lot of evidence showing that the temperatures that would have been produced from plane crashes in the WTC buildings would be nowhere near the temperatures required to melt or even significantly warp the steel columns.


    You suggest that their maths are no good. I don't yet understand their maths, however, so I have not come to this conclusion. Since many other things they have said seem to have solid evidence, I am assuming that their maths are good.


    I have already posted information stating that many of the alleged terrorists are still alive today.


    I have certainly seen some very plausible eyewitness accounts:
    (article): http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm
    (film): http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm


    I definitely disagree with that assessment and have felt that the official story believers are the ones who have glossed over many things.
     
  19. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    While you lack any critical thinking skills whatsoever I give you credit for arguing against several people at the same time. It is a lot of work and requires persistence.

    The evidence for flight 77 hitting the pentagon is overwhelming. The testimony given on the day supports it, knocked over light poles, plane wreckage, hijackers documents, the FDR, dna of the passengers ect.

    The evidence against is testimony taken later on (how long I don't know) where amazingly they still say they saw the plane hit the pentagon! There may be some disagreement and some distorted interpretations regarding the approach but that could never be called solid evidence.

    These claims have been completely, utterly refuted. You have either missed or ignored this.

    Also comprehensively debunked.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It's very understandable. I am a heartthrob to one and all.

    Well, I disagree partially with your tack. You're taking the perspective that we represent an audience to be "converted". But the issue to me is more "what is the likeliest explanation?" This is an undirected search for truth; I do appreciate that all people start with some kind of inherent bias, of course.

    This is possible, certainly. Some of the facts it may behoove us to know. Some, it may not. But to infer that the government is covering something up is a bit - if I may borrow a favoured phrase of Tiassa, then wash my hands with a frantic fervour until they bleed, then burn my ears off - "sensationalistic". We don't know what they know, or don't know, or even if they know anything. I think it's a not uncommon trap to assume that the "powers that be" know everything. Yet, such people are also, like you and I, human, with the odd secret Lizardoid-in-the-Karl-Rove-Mask thrown in for salt. They make mistakes, grand and small. Their country's economy just went into the tank while they blinked and watched like goldfish - (and, on that subject, thank you, George W, for implying that the nation would erupt in fire if the bail-out wasn't approved; brilliantly inspiring choice of words; do you not have a speechwriter, sir? Was he absent, sick, driven insane, unconscious from a blow to the head?) - unable to puzzle out the immediate and unavoidable consequences of herd mentality.

    Well, not exactly, no. Scott, I don't mean to portray everything you're saying as utter drivel spun together by a the like of a mad gnome with a spinning wheel turning straw into Pentagon missiles. (Just a joke.) I mean to say that some of what you say looks suspicious or seems credible prima facie. Yet a calmer and more rational approach to the same data results in a more reasoned, less sensationalist (ach, my mind) answer.

    I regret to say that "close to" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and the level of permissible inbreeding in Atlanta. The parts of the building falling off of it do achieve, by sheer definition, free fall speed; and even they are subject to air resistance of some kind. The building does not fall at free fall speed, as can be seen. So, I cannot agree that this is a fact; it is not a fact, unless fact can be defined by repetition.

    And, again, it does not. You have not explained the testimony of others. You have not explained the damage to the Pentagon. You have not described what sort of missile in the possession of the Pentagon could possibly be so massive.

    Then I will rely on my eyes; a plane could handily make such a pull-out.

    I refer here not to the pejorative, but to the original Platonic meaning of persuasion. I apologise for any insult you may have taken.

    Again: my regrets, but this is simply not so. You posted a link from a 9/11 site with a very conservative estimate of the temperature required for a loss of 50% of steel strength, which the fire in the Towers exceeded by at least 50F. This was your own posting. Is there much that can be said beyond this?

    Assumption, for several reasons, is the fertilizer of folly.

    Yes; and I have already posted information stating that this is based on misidentification and similarity of names. The BBC themselves retracted this story.

    Yet there are far more that contradict their version of events.

    Then here we again diverge. I cannot agree with your assessment. Whatever the official story may lack, if anything, in explanation is the result of accident, not intent. In short, there is no conspiracy of the kind you describe. In the pictures, for example, from the CIT site, I note that the damage to the Pentagon is more pronounced to the left of what appears to be the impact point. Is it not more reasonable to expect that the fire spread in this direction because it was carried into this section by the direction of the impact? Only one of their witnesses reported seeing the plane fly away after the explosion. 26 report otherwise.

    Now, will you do me the honour of examining SLC in more detail? Watch it through, right to the end, and report back your evaluation thereof. I consider it no shame to reverse a position; rather, it is the sign of a mature and responsible mind, and moreso than mine, as I am now going to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein and eat Cheetos.

    Geoff
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Scott,

    Would you like me to review the CIT site, assuming I have the time? Shall I start here?:

    It certainly is, in my opinion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    According to one 'shaman' who clearly doesn't agree with what I believe and thus may have a somewhat biased point of view on the subject...

    Thanks. It does get tiring though. I think I'll follow Geoff's example for a bit and play a computer game (WoW in my case) for a little bit..
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    9/11 theories and the WTC collapses

    Do you honestly believe that I think that the alternative theories I believe are not the most likely explanation?


    Sure. All those pesky facts making it clear that 9/11 was an inside job...


    If the truth is 'sensationalistic', so be it.



    Actually, we know a lot of things that they know. Such as the fact that NIST knows so very much about nanothermites and they failed to test for thermite being used on the WTC collapses altogether (despite this being common practice) just to name one example:
    http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wo...bvious-connections-between-nist-and-thermite/


    Perhaps, but it's not a trap I've ever fallen into.


    Yes, they do, or no one would have learned of their inside job.


    Some might argue that George's choice of words aided in getting his bailout approved. Again, I'm in no way suggesting that George is a master when it comes to wording. I'm only saying that at times his words, clumsy as they are, do have the intended effect.


    I would argue 2 things:
    1- You seem to be working for the government. As such, I believe you may have an impulse, be it unconscious or conscious or some mix of the 2, to want to see all of it in a good light.

    2- As far as I know, you have not taken the time to actually read a full fledged book of someone who disagrees with the official story of 9/11.

    3- There's still plenty of time to present you with more data that may eventually change your mind. I'm just not sure if I'll be the one doing it ;-).


    I didn't say it did. I said it fell at close to those speeds. But if you want an in depth of analysis of exactly what speeds they fell at it, you can go here:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

    The North tower apparently took around 15 seconds, with the south tower it's harder to tell. People can be forgiven for thinking they fell in only 10 seconds, which is very close to how fast it would have fall in a vacuum (9.2 seconds), as even the 9/11 report states this:
    ******************************************************
    At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds
    ******************************************************
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

    Here's a sequence of events for the North Tower:
    10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
    10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
    10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
    10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)

    In any case, a rudimentary understanding of the law of energy conservation should make it clear why it's absurd to support anything resembling the 'pancake theory', to which the government still subscribes, albeit in a somewhat more complex form. This page, relying on the aforementioned government's statement, still makes a very compelling case as to why it's impossible for the towers to have simply pancaked down:
    http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

    So, whether the towers fell at 10 or 15 seconds, their conclusion still stands:
    "It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times."

    I especially enjoy their final words:
    "The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion. "
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page