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. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,075
    Since 9/11 Conspiracist's have been over killing the forum. I think it's fair time for all the threads to be merged into one all mighty tangle of posts disjointed by the fact that people seem to think that they can discuss the topic in different threads (That would be fine but all the conspiracies have the same arguments. They are indeed conspiracies)
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2008
  2. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,136
    Physicist challenges official 9-11 story

    I find the collapse rate issues fairly compelling.

     
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,781
    There's no new information here. Virtually all of this data has been available to professional scientists since 2001, and most of it even to laymen. Particularly the basic information about the manner in which the buildings collapsed, which is on video. For a group of scientists to pop out of the woodwork five years later and say, "Hey, we just got around to looking at this stuff and our little group has discovered that absolutely everybody else is wrong," is a little suspicious.

    Steven E. Jones is a nuclear physicist who has spent his entire career studying something arcane about muon-based fusion. This subject is not exactly his specialty.

    Google reveals a number of sources that raise issues about the expertise, motivation and methods of this group.

    Considering the almost treasonous relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud, plus the fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, plus the fact that Osama is a member by marriage of the House of Saud, plus the fact that Bush made an exception to the no-fly rule on 9/11 and allowed an entire planeload of Saudis to leave the USA, there is no shortage of leads for conspiracy theorists about 9/11. Yet in more than six years none of them has succeeded.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2008
  4. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,343
    The thermite thing got debunked a long time ago.
     
  5. Reasonably, though, if you were to attack a building; why would you not coordinate ground forces to topple it, after striking with a plane.

    It is an attention getter, as the whole of the world watched.

    I find it reasonable to believe it fallacy that someone could not have ensued in the chaos that followed with explosives. As, was the first attempt on the WTC, via truck bomb in 1993.
     
  6. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,590
    Are any of the scientists structural engineers that have designed skyscrapers?
     
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    There are so many errors in that pdf paste that it is getting kind of embarrassing refuting them.
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,781
    Why go to all that trouble? They clearly had access to a wealth of information about the buildings and knew exactly where to hit them to make them fall. That was a rather narrow zone, due to the oddity of NYC outlawing asbestos halfway through construction of the buildings so the top half was not built the same way as the bottom half. The planes hit them perfectly. They didn't need extra help. This project was large enough. If they added additional personnel to it, especially operating within the U.S., it would have increased their chance of detection. That would have been unwise.
    I didn't find anyone with those credentials in my brief review of the organization. If they had a structural engineer it would give them a huge boost in credibility so you'd think his name would be prominently listed. The guy who seems to be in charge is a nuclear physicist!

    This sounds like Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling pontificating about the merits of Vitamin C back in the 1970s, something far outside his own field of expertise.
     
  9. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,136
    Success means a widespread acceptance. There are many reasons why this might not take place. How many people can really look at counterevidence objectively? The energy behind trying to find fault with anything running counter to the official story would be enormous.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,781
    Americans love conspiracy theories and are generally skeptical and iconoclastic when it comes to "official stories." Look at the JFK shooting: a number of conspiracy theories are still in wide circulation and have considerable (if minority) respectable support. Absolutely none of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have achieved that level of legitimacy.

    Look at the massive evolution denial movement!

    If you can't get support for a kooky theory in America, it simply has to be poppycock.
     
  11. I don't get wrapped up in correct usage of keys I rap at, if I determine the conveyance of my thoughts are easily ascertained. I'll leave that to a linguist, whom I'm sure does indicate very precisely. I'm not working on a thesis here, just replying to a post.

    Anyways, I'll reiterate. If you, yourself, were to attack an enemy. Would you not use various means? I don't see the impossibility of utilizing other means of attack than just the illustrious air planes. No one saw the first bombing attempt either, when the explosives were used. They did so in guise. So as to not be interrupted. And, I'm reasonably certain there was a detonation in 1993. Explosives are readily employed by terrorists when attacking solid structures. Has been for some time, still is.

    Yes, I realize the way the 'light' was shown/seen: It was a grand performance. But, I don't realize why I should have "seen" enemy combatants prancing about in obvious fashion for all to gawk at, so that our forces might indicate against them.

    You could almost reasonably assume they would have wanted to succeed. And, since most don't like their buildings blown up, they might have wanted to proceed without much scrutiny.

    I can't/won't say if this took place. And never did. Just that I find it ridiculous that an enemy wanting to destroy a building would not do so.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,952
    And part of that energy devoted to distracting people from the probable sources and evidence of real conspiracy and complicity, to spectacular but essentially nonsensical (and easily debunked, if they gain any actual traction) hypotheses would be clever, no?

    If you want a conspiracy theory there are far better ones ready to hand here.

    How many real inquiries into the many disturbing features and coincidences of 9/11 have been deflected by lumping them in with claims that the buildings were demolished by explosives, a missile hit the Pentagon, etc etc etc. ?

    Briefly: the buildings did not fall as quickly as claimed by the demolition asserters, nor did they accellerate much in the last half of their collapses (the central problem is identifying the precise moment of initial drop - the first few feet take the most time - then consider that even large differences between free fall accelleration and the actual more constant speed during the final half would be masked by the short total time of that phase and the difficulty of identifying the exact moment of final impact).

    The demolition theory is not necessary to explain side explosions, melted steel, etc - the heat and violence of air compression, impacts, and grinding concrete easily account for all that.

    The alleged demolitions would have required accurate prediction of the impact point and attitude of the planes, and some kind of rigging that could be counted on to survive the impact and still function precisely and with utter reliability. You can't just set them off all at once, if they are to mimic sequential collapse they have to be started at exactly the right spot and timed to within a hundredth of a second.

    And besides - why in hell would anyone bother? Why take such an enormous and unnecessary risk of screwup and discovery, when almost all the gain is assured simply by the plane impacts ? - if what happened to the Pennsylvania plane had happened to one of the Tower planes, all that demolition rigging would have been on the evening news.

    Demolition's completely unnecessary and wildly unreasonable. But it has served very well to distract from evidence of complicity and hidden deals, in other aspects of the event.
     
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,343
    *flame deleted*

    Not if I were a terrorist, no. I'd keep the plan as simple as possible, with as few people involved as possible so as to avoid detection, and increase the likelyhood of my mission succeeding. If I failed, others could try a different approach, people I have never met, but share the same cause. You should look into the organisation of terror cells, like the triads, you know a guy that knows a guy, but you all don't know each other, that way should one person get captured, the amount they can reveal about the organisation as a whole is limited. This means also that their capacity to act is limited, but also effective if the plan is simple.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2008
  14. Jeesh, flip the ATTACK-MODE off. I've reviewed my original post, and although somewhat terse for the areas it conveyed, it was simple to understand, in my opinion.

    I seldom engross the engagement of the act of, when no correction is made. Only negative input...

    I'll state this, for the flow of conversation: Spurts of conflict do little to imply someone is either/nor smart. Just creates friction. If you can't take the time to state what is wrong, and why...why waste my time...
     
  15. Most Military Strategist have what some call 'plans of succession'.
    It's like bombing a site, and then striking it again with another salvo. To ensure the target's elimination. Often, there are other methods to be employed should the original plan fail.

    Many have back up plans when they do something. Anyone attacking something as large as the WTC that wanted to destroy it would be somewhat likely to use explosives. Since, it was very discouraging for the terrorists in 1993 when they failed with the truck bomb, they would probably not want a repeat of the same thing.
     
  16. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,343
    If your 'plan b' claim is true, why didn't the truck bombers finish the job off with some jet airplanes, just to make sure, huh?

    Or is it as I said, they tried a simple plan, failed, and then others tried something else?
     
  17. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Look I don't know about WTC 1 and 2, but building 7 was DEMO'd. Anyone with fucking eyeballs that work properly can see that. It casts doubt on the whole official story.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,952
    So he meant to say that the chaos followed with explosives, and in that chaos people ensued ?

    My eyeblls showed me nothing unexpected that required demolition. That there were things in the building rigged to be blown up for some reason is an outside possibility. The hypothesis of planned demolition coordinated with the suicide strike distracts from far more likely problems with the official story, IMHO.
     
  19. I'm aware that they are not a recognized, trained military body. Not by any country. I'm simply pointing to the fact that terrorists have used explosives often, in many acts. Especially against buildings. And, why so many think it implausible is just an act of diminishing a threat. Easier to stomach, I guess.

    I'll state I don't know. They probably wouldn't tell you, if they knew. But, since explosives are often used to demolish structures, I see know reason why they couldn't be in this instance. I'm not fond of convenience. This laissez-faire attitude is one, in my opinion, of where someone else will maintain the order, and you may freely go about your business.
     
  20. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I could swear that I remember statements on that date that building 7 was deliberately demolished. I cannot see how it is physically possible for that building to have fallen into its own footprint the way that it obviously did without someone having spent a lot of hours installing the explosives the way that they need to be installed. To have three buildings collapse as neatly as they did in one day seems incredibly unlikely. Of course, a lot of the people who talk about it would rather have me believe the physically impossible because of course Bush "would never do that." But he continues close business ties with people who he knows financed it and wastes thousands of American lives attacking a country that he knows very well didn't do it. On what basis do I place hypothetical limits on Bush's behavior?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page