# Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...



## hardheadjarhead

The movie "Loose Change" started out as a fictional screenplay.  I'd argue it remained that way...


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html


Regards,



Steve


----------



## Don Roley

> There's something empowering about just exploring such questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the government line "sheeple.")



Explains a lot of all conspiracy theories, including a lot of the ones we see here. I think there is a bit of a superiority complex by most conspiracy theory nuts because they think they can see things that the rest of us are too stupid to see. "But if only you would open up your eyes and not be so closed minded....." goes the popular line.


----------



## Kreth

*Sigh* The two creators of this "documentary" are from Oneonta, so I hear about it all the time. Asking questions like, "OK, if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then where are the people from the real plane?" usually doesn't go over well...


----------



## Andrew Green

I think it all comes back to something simple.  The people in charge all wanted to point fingers, take a strong "stand" for what was right, and use it to further there own interests.

With everyone pointing all over the place and saying "He did it" no one ever gets a real explanation, and wouldn't be able to tell the truth from the 1000's of other stories.

So in the absense of anything that can really be called "The Truth" and a bunch of officials running around covering their asses, pointing fingers and trying to use it for their own gain, it's not that suprising that some people start suspecting a secret scheme from behind the scenes.


----------



## Makalakumu

Kreth said:


> *Sigh* The two creators of this "documentary" are from Oneonta, so I hear about it all the time. Asking questions like, "OK, if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then where are the people from the real plane?" usually doesn't go over well...


 
I think that is a good question.

Anyway, this comes from the original article...



> The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.



If this poll is representative of all US citizens, that is alot of people.


----------



## crushing

Speaking of significant percentages of the US population believing things:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

"Sixty-four percent of the respondents said that aliens have contacted humans, half said they've abducted humans, and 37 percent said they have contacted the U.S. government."

Hmmm.  36% in that poll v. 37% in this one?


----------



## Cryozombie

upnorthkyosa said:


> If this poll is representative of all US citizens, that is alot of people.


 
I dunno that its true, but it wouldnt supprise me.


----------



## Makalakumu

Technopunk said:


> I dunno that its true, but it wouldnt supprise me.


 
Me either...


----------



## Blotan Hunka

crushing said:


> Speaking of significant percentages of the US population believing things:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
> 
> "Sixty-four percent of the respondents said that aliens have contacted humans, half said they've abducted humans, and 37 percent said they have contacted the U.S. government."
> 
> Hmmm. 36% in that poll v. 37% in this one?


 
Maybe the NEOCONS are in league with the aliens to take over the world. Like in "The X-Files". And the trade centers were actually downed by alien death rays. Yeah.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Maybe the NEOCONS are in league with the aliens to take over the world. Like in "The X-Files". And the trade centers were actually downed by alien death rays. Yeah.


 
Or maybe it was 19 Arab hijackers with some flight training and box cutters and hell of alot of "hate for our freedom."

...and a bit of the devil's luck.

Especially considering the targets they attacked and the trillions of dollars we've spent to defend those targets.


----------



## tradrockrat

Well to paraphrase my friend Duck (MDW Special Rescue Engineering Co) - 

"I don't know, maybe it was a cruise missle, but if it was it was well hidden under the plane parts and burned bodies I had to get around when I was busy putting out fires and reinforcing the burned out walls."


Just ask someone who was there.


----------



## Brother John

Andrew Green said:


> I think it all comes back to something simple. The people in charge all wanted to point fingers, take a strong "stand" for what was right, and use it to further there own interests.
> 
> With everyone pointing all over the place and saying "He did it" no one ever gets a real explanation, and wouldn't be able to tell the truth from the 1000's of other stories.
> 
> So in the absense of anything that can really be called "The Truth" and a bunch of officials running around covering their asses, pointing fingers and trying to use it for their own gain, it's not that suprising that some people start suspecting a secret scheme from behind the scenes.



yeah, 
THat OR the truth is so simple and plain that they don't want to accept it.

Forget the politicians: their very job description REQUIRES that they put spin to Everything. (Regardless of party affiliation)

The simplest facts point out the obvious truth. But few want to accept it.
"NO....there's something MORE to this."


no...there isn't.


Your Brother
John


----------



## hongkongfooey

These guys need to lay off the drugs. What makes them think they are qualified to offer proof of a conspiracy at the Pentagon?


----------



## jazkiljok

i was listening to a pacifica radio station broadcast the loose change documentary, or something like it, they played over and over a live recording of the towers coming down where they heard this series of pops in the background as a reporter described the horror of the moment. the hosts of the show told its audience that these were &quot;OBVIOUSLY&quot; the sounds of specially placed detonators. over and over they played the pops, over and over they reinforced their beleif that some secret gov't special ops team had purposely brought the buildings down.

in some way this seemed to me like the inverse, if not somewhat perverse, version of generals and state dept heads showing up on TV and pointing to some nondescript blots on satellite photos and telling us how one is a secret missle launcher, the other a moving poison chemical lab. their pointers constantly circling the blots as they repeated over and over what we were suppose to &quot;obviously&quot; see.

when authority makes up **** to justify whatever agenda their pitching at the time, eventually anti-authority pushes back with it's own b.s.

we live in the age of manipulation and anyone can play.


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> Or maybe it was 19 Arab hijackers with some flight training and box cutters and hell of alot of "hate for our freedom."
> 
> ...and a bit of the devil's luck.
> 
> Especially considering the targets they attacked and the trillions of dollars we've spent to defend those targets.



Well, the old saying is that people like that only have to get lucky once.

What I want to know is how the people that insulted everyone in America by saying that their goverment was responsible for 9-11 plan on saying they were sorry considering that Al-Queda has released videos of the people that flew those planes to their deaths.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...n/20060907133309990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001

There are a lot of people that used to make a big case of talking about how they did the research and how everyone else was a big idiot for not accepting their version of events about 9-11 who have not made even the slightest effort to apologize for their insults now that Al-Queada has used images of the hijackers for months in their propaganda.


----------



## Marginal

Blotan Hunka said:


> Maybe the NEOCONS are in league with the aliens to take over the world.


 
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/aliens/52520

You are well read.


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> Well, the old saying is that people like that only have to get lucky once.


 
Yup.  Real lucky.



> What I want to know is how the people that insulted everyone in America by saying that their goverment was responsible for 9-11 plan on saying they were sorry considering that Al-Queda has released videos of the people that flew those planes to their deaths.


 
Is this how you see people who question the official story?  Do you really feel that it is an insult to America?  If so, do you think that there are many others who feel the way you do?

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...n/20060907133309990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001


> http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...n/20060907133309990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...n/20060907133309990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...n/20060907133309990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001

And, not to be smarmy or anything like that, but Don, do you know for sure where Al-jazeera got these tapes?  It certainly seems like a politically convenient time for their airing...



> There are a lot of people that used to make a big case of talking about how they did the research and how everyone else was a big idiot for not accepting their version of events about 9-11 who have not made even the slightest effort to apologize for their insults now that Al-Queada has used images of the hijackers for months in their propaganda.


 
This goes both ways.  If someone disrespects someones ideas and efforts, why should they respect that person in return?


----------



## Makalakumu

Oh, by the way, here is another MSM article on this subject...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/



> To make sense of the truth movement's anger, you need to hit the rewind button to early 2001, with the hindsight of today. There was, as the 9/11 Commission hearings made clear, a bad moon rising. Warnings kept coming of a "high probability" of a "spectacular" terrorist attack. A national security adviser warned Condoleezza Rice there were terrorist cells, probably al-Qaeda guys, in the country. CIA chief George Tenet said the "system was blinking red."
> 
> A presidential bulletin on Aug. 6 had a catchy title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush did not discuss it again with Tenet before Sept. 11.
> So give the truth movement, many of whom are based in New York City, their props. They may be paranoid, but something nasty came our way. They pore over the paper trail with a Sherlock Holmesian intensity, alert to intriguing discrepancy.
> 
> Such as:
> 
> Former transporation secretary Norman Mineta told the commission he arrived in the presidential operations center -- under the White House -- at 9:20 a.m. on Sept. 11 and found Vice President Cheney. When an aide asked Cheney about the hijacked plane fast approaching the Pentagon, Mineta says the vice president snapped that the "orders still stand." Mineta assumed the orders were to shoot the plane down. Conspiracy theorists interpret this to mean: Don't shoot it down.
> 
> Cheney later said he was not in the operations center until after the plane hit. The commission never mentioned Mineta's contradictory version.
> 
> In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. But the government recently released tapes claiming to show the FAA did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed.
> 
> That would mean the FAA repeatedly lied. It would also mean, as Griffin points out, that the entire military chain of command stayed quiet about huge inaccuracies for four years "even though . . . the true story would put the military in a better light."
> 
> More mysteries pile up. The 9/11 Commission says Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. But Honegger says clocks stopped at the Pentagon at 9:32. Then there's the collapse of the twin towers, which Jones, the physics professor, timed at just short of free fall. Griffin cites firefighters, including a captain, who said in hearings and on tapes from that day that they saw flashes and heard the sound of explosions before the collapse.
> 
> "It's like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire," Honegger says from her home in California. "They guided and secretly protected it to justify their global agenda."
> 
> Let's put aside the could-anyone-do-something-that-spectacularly-twisted? question and touch on practicalities. Isn't the problem with big ugly conspiracies -- from the Gulf of Tonkin to My Lai to the 1961 Pentagon plan to provoke a war by attacking Americans and blaming it on Castro -- that they are too big and ugly to keep secret?
> 
> Griffin shrugs. History is littered with government black-bag jobs. "*How do you know they can't keep big secrets? Can you be sure you know what you don't know?*"


 
I found this to be an interesting contrast from the first article...


----------



## Makalakumu

Also, for anyone who is intersted, here is more info on that Scripps poll cited above...

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

Considering the implications of something that is so fresh, so painful, and something everyone in America saw, this is alot of people.  And when you consider the fact that if all of this was true, the implications for our society are so utterly dark, it is even more astounding.

With that in mind, an interesting question crops up.  What happens if the numbers of people who believe this stuff grows?  What if in a few months we are looking at 50%?  What if in six months we are looking at 66%?

That, IMHO, isn't out of the question considering how angry people are over the War and over the Bush administration in general.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

The usual suspects.


----------



## MA-Caver

Here check this site out. http://wtc.nist.gov/


----------



## Makalakumu

Yeah, I've seen their FAQ.  Here is an informed opinion of it...

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NIST_Responses.doc


----------



## Blotan Hunka

HAHAHAH!!! Like anything from "scholarsfor911truth" should be accepthed as anything but tin hat crap!

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that you can NEVER disprove them. Any evidence to the contrary was just planted by ZOG, Big Brother or the NEOCONS. Its all part of a wider conspiracy man. I call...

:bs:


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> HAHAHAH!!! Like anything from "scholarsfor911truth" should be accepthed as anything but tin hat crap!
> 
> The beauty of conspiracy theories is that you can NEVER disprove them. Any evidence to the contrary was just planted by ZOG, Big Brother or the NEOCONS. Its all part of a wider conspiracy man. I call...
> 
> :bs:


 

Hmmmmmmm......
:bs1: 

See, I can do it too, but this doesn't really add to the discussion.  So, what do you think about some of the questions I posed above?


----------



## Cryozombie

upnorthkyosa said:


> Yeah, I've seen their FAQ.  Here is an informed opinion of it...
> 
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NIST_Responses.doc



Eh, I read thru that too... and found some flaws in their "informed" logic as well.

*shrug*

It's unlikely we will EVER know what is the truth.


----------



## Makalakumu

Technopunk said:


> Eh, I read thru that too... and found some flaws in their "informed" logic as well.


 
Like what?  Just curious...


----------



## Cryozombie

upnorthkyosa said:


> Like what?  Just curious...



Eh, mostly little things, like the heat that jet fuel burns at etc... they dont take into account things like a fire that is in a contained space burns hotter than one in the open, etc... just show off the raw numbers.


----------



## Makalakumu

Technopunk said:


> Eh, mostly little things, like the heat that jet fuel burns at etc... they dont take into account things like a fire that is in a contained space burns hotter than one in the open, etc... just show off the raw numbers.


 
All I can say is that they do take that into account and they take into account the amount of oxygen available, but anyway, thanks for giving a few more details.  

Truth is, I don't know how much I want to get into this anymore...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html



> The terrorism we confront today springs from:
> 
> *Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation*. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M...s/september2006/070906terroristrecruiters.htm

The government is the gatekeeper to all of the facts that could put people's minds at ease.  And instead of doing this, they imply that people who question any aspect of the official story are "terrorist recruiters" and that we should not tolerate these questions on principle alone.  

With that being said, I think I'm done with this...I can see wear this is leading.


----------



## hongkongfooey

These guys are claiming that flight 93 didn't crash. That the cell phone calls never happened. I guess the people that were on the flight are detained at Gitmo, right? How can people believe this garbage. 

Our Government isn't perfect. In fact they have done a lot of messed up stuff. But, to say that our government planned and executed these attacks is pretty sad.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Exactly HKF.


----------



## bustr

> What I want to know is how the people that insulted everyone in America by saying that their goverment was responsible for 9-11 plan on saying they were sorry considering that Al-Queda has released videos of the people that flew those planes to their deaths.



Where do you get off saying that? It's an insult to the victims to bury your head in the sand as you seem to be doing. So Al CIAda released videos. Steven Spielberg released 3 movies about dinosaurs which we know to be fictional. Think maybe the US government which has more money and resources might possibly have produced those Al CIAda videos to help perpetuate the mythology that benefits it's globalist patrons? 

Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? 

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

The PNAC document? 

http://www.mecgrassroots.org/NEWSL/ISS45/45.10global.html

Ever heard of this?

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cj... (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft""

4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the &#8220;special
aircraft jurisdiction&#8221; of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, *forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.* DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

Info on reference D
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/9/11/132333/248

What really happened can never be known for sure. Our government has already destroyed most of the evidence. As "truth seekers" we don't need to prove anything. We just have to create doubt in the government's official story. And the official story is BS!


----------



## hongkongfooey

Hey Blotan, put on your tinfoil hat.


----------



## hongkongfooey

bustr said:


> Where do you get off saying that? It's an insult to the victims to bury your head in the sand as you seem to be doing. So Al CIAda released videos. Steven Spielberg released 3 movies about dinosaurs which we know to be fictional. Think maybe the US government which has more money and resources might possibly have produced those Al CIAda videos to help perpetuate the mythology that benefits it's globalist patrons?
> 
> Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
> 
> The PNAC document?
> 
> http://www.mecgrassroots.org/NEWSL/ISS45/45.10global.html
> 
> Ever heard of this?
> 
> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cj... (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft""
> 
> 4. Policy.
> a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
> to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
> (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
> related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the special
> aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. When requested by the
> Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
> law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
> point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
> event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
> means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
> responses as authorized by reference d, *forward requests for DOD*
> *assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.* DOD assistance to
> the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
> guidance is provided in Enclosure A.
> 
> Info on reference D
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/9/11/132333/248
> 
> What really happened can never be known for sure. Our government has already destroyed most of the evidence. As "truth seekers" we don't need to prove anything. We just have to create doubt in the government's official story. And the official story is BS!


 

In your opinion the official story is BS. If your side is touting the conspiracy nonsense as fact, you do need to prove your thereoy. 

I guess the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was an inside job too. 

In 1998, Osama issued a fatwa against all Americans. In the same year our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are bombed. Inside Job?

In 2000 The USS Cole is attacked. Inside Job?

2001 They succeed in bring down the twin towers. 

Osama declared that there is no distinction between military and civilians in his fatwa. He was behind all of the attacks up to and including 9-11.

But you're right, it was all a setup. It had to be George Bush.


----------



## Makalakumu

I honestly don't know what happened.  I do not beleive the governments account, because of the lies, distortions, and ommissions that are so widespread throughout both the commission report and the NIST study.

9/11 conspiracies won't go away because of that fact and because of this information.  

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer reviewed academic journal that pulls together the most cogent arguments offered by the top minds in this movement.  If you are interested in seeing the REAL reason this stuff won't go away, I would suggest that you go to this site and read everything they have.  

And I suggest you do it quick before the government shuts down all of the "terrorist recruitment" on the internet.  

"terrorist recruitment" nice rebuttal.  Now, I'm done.


----------



## FearlessFreep




----------



## bustr

> In your opinion the official story is BS. If your side is touting the conspiracy nonsense as fact, you do need to prove your thereoy.


 
Actually proof is required for conviction not indictment. Proof would have to be provided by expert researchers. However the government has destroyed most of the evidence so getting an indictment isn't likely. The administration and it's cronies will never be made to pay for their crimes. A more realistic objective is to try them in the court of public opinion and keep their sins up front in the public's conciousness.



> In 1998, Osama issued a fatwa against all Americans. In the same year our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are bombed. Inside Job?


 
Meet CIA officer Tim Osman

http://orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> And, not to be smarmy or anything like that, but Don, do you know for sure where Al-jazeera got these tapes?  It certainly seems like a politically convenient time for their airing...



So you think that the tapes from the last several months, years even, that Al-queda has been releasing has been made by the goverment? That is just silly. 

You honestly think that Al-Queda would sit still as they were blamed for something they didn't do and could not tell someone like Al-jazeera thier side of the story?

Since that is just too silly to imagine, you have to be saying that Osama bin Laden and his orginization were set up by the goverment to do what they did.

There is a percentage of the population that thinks the goverment, or parts of it, knew what Al-Queda was going to do and looked the other way for their benefit. That type of person is just stupid because they don't bother to consider that someone would have said no way to the idea and confessed befroe hand or in the years afterward.

There is a much smaller group that thinks that the goverment did it and blamed it on a group that had tried to bring down the towers before. Those folks are nuts, plain and simple.

And there is an even smaller and loonier group that looks at the tapes and such of Osama and Al-Queada admitting to the attacks and  immediatly think that it is part of the conspiracy and that Osama is making all these tapes either in total ignorance or in actuall cahoots with the conspirators. There is no polite way to say it, but those folks need some help in getting back in touch with reality.


----------



## Makalakumu

Nice rebuttle of attacks on people's intelligence, Don.  I have to wonder why you wonder why people respond negatively to that.

Anyway, I'll have you know that the LA times reported in 2001 that one of the "terrorists" in the video is still alive and protesting his innocence in Saudi Arabia.  And the other "terrorist" in the video is apparently not who the FBI thinks he is.  The man's own father says that this man is not his son.

So, who are these guys?  Where did these videos come from?  The FBI doesn't even know who all of the terrorists are?  They refuse to even update their list to the people who have been found alive and well.

With all of this in mind and considering the government faked the first Bin Laden tape, the one where Al Qaeda takes credit, and suppressed the real first Bin Laden tapes, the ones were he claims that Al Qaeda was not involved, it is not a stretch to consider the possibility that this is a well crafted peice of propaganda.

BTW - the REAL first two Bin Laden tapes were never aired in the US per request by the Bush Administration.  They told the networks that the tapes "might contain secret messages for terrorists living in our country."


----------



## jazkiljok

upnorthkyosa said:


> Nice rebuttle of attacks on people's intelligence, Don.  I have to wonder why you wonder why people respond negatively to that.
> 
> Anyway, I'll have you know that the LA times reported in 2001 that one of the "terrorists" in the video is still alive and protesting his innocence in Saudi Arabia.  And the other "terrorist" in the video is apparently not who the FBI thinks he is.  The man's own father says that this man is not his son.
> 
> So, who are these guys?  Where did these videos come from?  The FBI doesn't even know who all of the terrorists are?  They refuse to even update their list to the people who have been found alive and well.
> 
> With all of this in mind and considering the government faked the first Bin Laden tape, the one where Al Qaeda takes credit, and suppressed the real first Bin Laden tapes, the ones were he claims that Al Qaeda was not involved, it is not a stretch to consider the possibility that this is a well crafted peice of propaganda.
> 
> BTW - the REAL first two Bin Laden tapes were never aired in the US per request by the Bush Administration.  They told the networks that the tapes "might contain secret messages for terrorists living in our country."



this whole thread is an example of the main story "why the 911 conspiracies won't go away"

we rely on our gov't for facts and as some arbiter of truth in matters that affect the public at large. grand commissions are appointed and much money spent to inform the public of the facts. reports are written and conclusions drawn. shorlty after, the experts who weren't ask to the party, begin to assail the reports, challenge the facts, and/or draw different conclusions. then folks who find either the reports or the critics of the reports damning of their own involvement will challenge the reports, the reporters and point fingers back or elsewhere.

then the public through blogs, websites, books, articles and plain word of mouth rumor mill, begin to form their own peculiar take on events. cultural biases, ethnic biases, race biases, class biases influence these usually radically charged viewpoints. 

years later- Mel Gibson produces a movie about 9/11.

he calls it "Jews on a Plane"


----------



## FearlessFreep

I actually was wondering from the very first post how long it would take for the thread to go from talking about why conspiracy theories won't go away to arguing about the conspiracy itself.  Didn't talk long


----------



## Makalakumu

FearlessFreep said:


> I actually was wondering from the very first post how long it would take for the thread to go from talking about why conspiracy theories won't go away to arguing about the conspiracy itself. Didn't talk long


 
I think that it is still on topic though.  Think about it.  The conspiracies won't go away because of the information that is present.  The arguments are compelling and the government's official conspiracy theory is so full of holes.  

For example, here are two videos that compile the work of various scientists as they studied and attempted to check the government's theories explaining WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapse.  

Part One
Part Two

This will take about an hour to view and there are alot of scientific details so you need to be on your toes and listen closely.  Grab a cup of coffee.

The bottom line is that the end result is stunning.  The government's official investigation into the collapse of the Buildings 1 and 2 *is wrong on every single point*.  Their own experiments disprove their own theories and the only way they could get the results THAT THEY WANTED was to use a computer and exaggerate all of the perameters.  All of this is explicitly laid out in the 10,000 pages of the NIST report.

This is why these theories are not only sticking around, but they are gaining more support each day.  When you just take the time to look at the evidence and the government's explanation for that evidence, you realize that what the government claims is impossible.  

Therefore, other, more plausible and scientific, explanations must be considered.


----------



## tradrockrat

tradrockrat said:


> Well to paraphrase my friend Duck (MDW Special Rescue Engineering Co) -
> 
> "I don't know, maybe it was a cruise missle, but if it was it was well hidden under the plane parts and burned bodies I had to get around when I was busy putting out fires and reinforcing the burned out walls."
> 
> 
> Just ask someone who was there.



I noticed none of the people who agree with the conspiracy theorists have adressed my original post...

My friend and his coworkers are not high ups in the government, they're just guys doing a job and they were there and they saw what they saw.  Their presence there is indisputable fact.  They all saw the same things - It would be impossible to shut these gys up entirely short of killing them all and they are alll alive and well.

AND THEY SAW AIRPLANE PARTS AND BODY PEICES

If you all want to sit on your computers and talk crap about things you never saw and in no way are qualified to discuss (every single thing you know about this is through second / third / fourth hand accounts if they are even based on accounts at all) intelligently then go right ahead and build your sand castles of conspiracy to make you feel better about your negative beliefs of this (admitedly pathetic) administration.  Go ahead.  Enjoy.  But to people like Duck and others who were actually there, you're just a bunch of chickens claiming the sky is falling.

Oh yeah - my anecdote is unprovable as fact so it doesn't count, right?

Or Maybe Duck and all his coworkers are plants to spread disinformation to the masses.

Gee this is fun!  I can make up any excuse I want and nobody can stop me or prove me wrong!  Verbal Masturbation at its finest!  I'm going to read a sci-fi novel for more ideas...

Actually, I'll just stop posting now on this thread so that others can enjoy their fantasies


----------



## FearlessFreep

_Think about it. The conspiracies won't go away because of the information that is present. The arguments are compelling and the government's official conspiracy theory is so full of holes. _

Just can't help yourself, can you?


----------



## Makalakumu

tradrockrat said:


> AND THEY SAW AIRPLANE PARTS AND BODY PEICES


 
All of the No Plane Theories are probably BS.  Anybody who is anybody who is doing any real research on them doesn't focus much on them except to ask for the release of the video tapes that show the planes hitting the pentagon.  There are other, far more important and measureable things that can be looked at and studied.

The bottom line is that people really did die in these attacks and many people saw what they saw, heard what they heard...including explosions in the world trade towers BEFORE the planes hit and after the planes hit on floors that were not even burning.

Just take a look at the presentation I posted.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think that it is still on topic though. Think about it. The conspiracies won't go away because of the information that is present. The arguments are compelling and the government's official conspiracy theory is so full of holes.
> 
> For example, here are two videos that compile the work of various scientists as they studied and attempted to check the government's theories explaining WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapse.
> 
> Part One
> Part Two
> 
> This will take about an hour to view and there are alot of scientific details so you need to be on your toes and listen closely. Grab a cup of coffee.
> 
> The bottom line is that the end result is stunning. The government's official investigation into the collapse of the Buildings 1 and 2 *is wrong on every single point*. Their own experiments disprove their own theories and the only way they could get the results THAT THEY WANTED was to use a computer and exaggerate all of the perameters. All of this is explicitly laid out in the 10,000 pages of the NIST report.
> 
> This is why these theories are not only sticking around, but they are gaining more support each day. When you just take the time to look at the evidence and the government's explanation for that evidence, you realize that what the government claims is impossible.
> 
> Therefore, other, more plausible and scientific, explanations must be considered.


 
You were already spanked on this one foil boy.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30749

Give it a rest.


----------



## Makalakumu

FearlessFreep said:


> Just can't help yourself, can you?


 
Maybe.  

Just take a look at the presentation I posted.  That is the reason why this stuff won't go away.  That is the reason why this movement is growing.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> You were already spanked on this one foil boy.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30749
> 
> Give it a rest.



Foil boy?

Nice.

btw - anyone who reads that thread is going to see something different.  Especially if they have some basic physics under their belt.


----------



## FearlessFreep

No, the reason it "won't go away" is because people want it to be true, for many of the reasons the article said, and ironically you are providing a perfect case study, which is what 've found so amusing over the last few days.

There are a lot of conspiracies that "won't go away" , such as the fake moon landings, JFK's Assasination, Vince Foster, Lincoln's Assasination, Atlantis, Pyramids and Aliens.  Some just get more attention or action because they involve more current events or more relevant events.  It has nothing to do with whether they are true or not (some may be true, or not...it's actually irrelevant) and everything about people's desires for them to be true, for various reasons.


----------



## Makalakumu

FearlessFreep said:


> No, the reason it "won't go away" is because people want it to be true...


 
First of all, take a look at the presentation.

Second of all, why on earth would anyone want this to be true?  I think that anyone who says that people want this to be true truly doesn't understand how terrible something like this really is, if it is true.

This is my home.  I've lived here all of my life.  Grew up in this system.  Benefitted from this system.  I want my own kids to have what I have.  To enjoy the legacy and the institutions of this place that I call home.

Jay, if this is true, none of that is possible, because the system is broken.  If something like this can happen, all of our institutions have been corrupted far beyond what anyone in their wildest dreams expected.  If this is true, it undermines all of the trust that is so essential for our system to work at all.  If this is true, then all of our hopes and dreams for our future are uncertain.

Why would anyone *want* that?

The answer is that nobody *wants* that.  And, to take this further, we can reverse psychoanalyze this by saying, "the reason people argue against this is because they subconsciously recoil from the implications of this thing."

In the end, the armchair psychology is nothing but an excuse for not doing the real work that logical reasoning takes.  If you want to understand this stuff, you've got to look at the evidence and trust what your own eyes are seeing.


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> With all of this in mind and considering the government faked the first Bin Laden tape, the one where Al Qaeda takes credit, and suppressed the real first Bin Laden tapes, the ones were he claims that Al Qaeda was not involved, it is not a stretch to consider the possibility that this is a well crafted peice of propaganda.



The goverment did not fake any tapes.They could not suppress any tapes. Osama Bin Laden has been giving tapes through his contacts to Al-Jeezera for years. It is him on the tapes. The goverment can't suppress the internet or Al-Jezera- unless you think that they are part of the CIA now.

When you have Al-queda figures give speaches in front of photos of the attacks, and urge people to commit attacks on Americans for the anniversery of the attacks, have Bin Laden admit it on tape and everything else- there is no way a rational mind can think that they were blamed for something they did not do.


----------



## Kreth

Don Roley said:


> The goverment can't suppress the internet...


I wouldn't be too sure about that. Al Gore invented it, after all...


----------



## Blotan Hunka




----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbdiagram.pdf LOL!


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy 

1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories. 

2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another. 

3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm.... 

4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!


----------



## Blotan Hunka

9-11 Conspiracy Cereal: A Few Nuts and a Bunch of Flakes



> Even my own experiences on 9-11 have been called into question by conspiracy nuts.
> 
> As many of you know, I was in Washington, DC on September 11, 2001 and saw American Airlines Flight 77 fly overhead and hit the Pentagon. I was closer to the aircraft than I was to the Pentagon, and within seconds of it racing past me, it exploded in a deep red fireball. My original account from that day can be found here: Eyewitness to Tragedy.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory. 

Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.

They do not investigate the controlled demolition theory, because they all agree with the progressive collapse theory.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
> 
> FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
> 
> FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
> 
> FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
> 
> FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
> 
> FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
> 
> Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.
> 
> They do not investigate the controlled demolition theory, because they all agree with the progressive collapse theory.


 
Watch the presentation and see for yourself.  Then we can discuss the actual FACTS of this matter.


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> The goverment did not fake any tapes.They could not suppress any tapes. Osama Bin Laden has been giving tapes through his contacts to Al-Jeezera for years. It is him on the tapes.


 
How do you know any of this?  This is all an assumption on your part.  And, yes, the first two Bin Laden tapes were not released in the US...they still have not been, for fear of "secret codes" hidden in them.



> When you have Al-queda figures give speaches in front of photos of the attacks, and urge people to commit attacks on Americans for the anniversery of the attacks, have Bin Laden admit it on tape and everything else- there is no way a rational mind can think that they were blamed for something they did not do.


 
When you have facial recognition studies showing that certain tapes ARE NOT Osama Bin Laden, there is no way that a rational mind can place too much credit in any of the tapes.

Use your own eyes and your own brain...


----------



## jazkiljok

Blotan Hunka said:


>



that is eye-opening... so what do you think? when did the Bush Administration and the Unilateral Commission get to Chomsky? or was he always a stooge?
:shrug:


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> How do you know any of this?  This is all an assumption on your part.  And, yes, the first two Bin Laden tapes were not released in the US...they still have not been, for fear of "secret codes" hidden in them.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have facial recognition studies showing that certain tapes ARE NOT Osama Bin Laden, there is no way that a rational mind can place too much credit in any of the tapes.
> 
> Use your own eyes and your own brain...



Are you basing your entire theory that Oasam Bin Laden has been working for the US goverment on that????

That was a joke, right? You can't seriously be basing the idea that all the tapes that have been released are fakes on things like Osama wearing a watcha and ring and the FBI never mentioned it in their poster! You can't think that Osama would not get out some tape to Al Jezeera or the internet if he was being blamed for something he did not do.

The type of evidence you base this huge theory on is the type of thing that comes from some kid that puts videos on a web site?


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> Are you basing your entire theory that Oasam Bin Laden has been working for the US goverment on that????
> 
> That was a joke, right? You can't seriously be basing the idea that all the tapes that have been released are fakes on things like Osama wearing a watcha and ring and the FBI never mentioned it in their poster! You can't think that Osama would not get out some tape to Al Jezeera or the internet if he was being blamed for something he did not do.
> 
> The type of evidence you base this huge theory on is the type of thing that comes from some kid that puts videos on a web site?


 
Obviously, if you read my posts, that isn't the only thing.  And yes, there were multiple denials.  



> The first public response from Osama bin Laden was read on September 16, 2001. He stated, "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel. ([4], [5], [6]). This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide. The second public response was read on September 28 by Daily Ummat a Pakistani newspaper. He stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. " [7].


 
Why would OBL say something like this and then make subsequent statements that completely contradict this?

Here is some more info that seems very strange...



> When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens Most Wanted web page, [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. ... The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden confession video, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesnt the FBI view the confession video as hard evidence? [Muckraker Report]


 
Use your own eyes...







Even Mr. Magoo can find the one that doesn't match.  Anyway, from the above, I think that anyone can see that there is some justification to doubt ALL of the tapes, from the translations to the very people in them.  

And I would like to point out again, that the two people in the tape that was initially referred too, the recent one where OBL is talking to two of the alleged hijackers, one of those men is alive in Saudi Arabia and the other is not who the FBI claims he is according to the man's own father.

So, who are those people?  What did Bin Laden really say to them?  Do any of you speak arabic?


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> Anyway, from the above, I think that anyone can see that there is some justification to doubt ALL of the tapes, from the translations to the very people in them.



So Osama doesn't exist anymore and all the tapes where he and his orginzation take credit for the attacks are fakes? 

FYI- Sept 16th and 28th 2001 was a time when he was denying things because the Taliban was trying to shield him and avoid an invasion. After that didn't work, he took credit for it. That is a simple reason that anyone can understand without a silly conspiracy theory about how everything out there by him for the last few years is a fake. And people do gain weight and such from time to time you know.

Honestly, to think that Osama would not continue to use this plot to frame him and manage to get out a message to people, and that all the tapes and messages from him are fakes for the last few years is just as silly as thinking that aliens are working with the goverment.


----------



## SFC JeffJ

> Honestly, to think that Osama would not continue to use this plot to frame him and manage to get out a message to people, and that all the tapes and messages from him are fakes for the last few years is just as silly as thinking that aliens are working with the goverment.



Are you trying to tell me the aliens aren't working with the U.S. Government?  If so, who are they working with then?

I've made a bit of a hobby out of conspiracy theories, and this one looks like all the rest.  Not as interesting even.

Jeff


----------



## Don Roley

JeffJ said:


> Are you trying to tell me the aliens aren't working with the U.S. Government?  If so, who are they working with then?



My board of education I think............


----------



## SFC JeffJ

Don Roley said:


> My board of education I think............


That would explain a lot.

Jeff


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> So Osama doesn't exist anymore and all the tapes where he and his orginzation take credit for the attacks are fakes?


 
I don't know.  Maybe.  Do you speak Arabic?  



> FYI- Sept 16th and 28th 2001 was a time when he was denying things because the Taliban was trying to shield him and avoid an invasion. After that didn't work, he took credit for it. That is a simple reason that anyone can understand without a silly conspiracy theory about how everything out there by him for the last few years is a fake.


 
This is all assumption on your part.



> And people do gain weight and such from time to time you know...


 
If you look at Osama C posted above, the "gaunt" one, you'll see a stark difference.  That image is from a tape that was taken five days after the first confession tape according to their "official" chronology.  Did OBL change that much in five days?

There are other problems.  If you compare facial features and landmarks, they are not the same.  See the forensics study published on the Scholar's page.  Bin Laden E is clearly not the same person as Bin Laden A-D.



> Honestly, to think that Osama would not continue to use this plot to frame him and manage to get out a message to people, and that all the tapes and messages from him are fakes for the last few years is just as silly as thinking that aliens are working with the goverment.


 
I'm not saying that all of the tapes are fake.  I'm saying that there is plenty of reason to doubt all of the tapes authenticity.  There is a difference.  Some of them could very well be the real Bin Laden.  Others, however, are clearly NOT Bin Laden.  

And, I won't even get into issues of translation.  It's already been shown in the German media that the US is mistranslating the Arabic so that the tapes "say" what we want them to say.

The bottom line is that there is plenty of reason to doubt all of this.  That is why it won't go away.


----------



## Makalakumu

Jeff

What stuff are you reading?  I would suggest you take a look at the two videos of the presentation I posted earlier.  

I wonder if anyone has done that yet...


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> I don't know.  Maybe.  Do you speak Arabic?



Uh, do you?

It seems that you get some pretty dubious sources off of the internet that give you what you want, ignore everything that counters it and try to make it sound like you know more than anyone else. It is kind of an appeal to authority.

But after you try to silence the other side by saying that your sources (like the 'scholars for 9-11 truth) are so well informed that we are fools for even trying to argue with what they say, someone comes along and shows that your exerts are not what they try to say they are.

The authorties you list are silly and the arguments you make are not convincing. And the logic you use- isn't logical.

You have to think that all the tapes are fake and/or Osama is part of the conspiracy or dead. We know he can get tapes to Al-Jezera and onto the internet. If he had no part in 9-11 then neither he nor his subordinates would use images of the attacks as part of their videos. Yet they have. And if these tapes were faked by the goverment, then you can hardly expect him to remain silent about it as he has. He would have gotten messages out that there are fake videos supposably made by his associates and he would at some point would have gotten through.

Trying to point to a lot of nutty web sites run by people who try to sound knowledgable is useless when that simple train of logic is taken into account. There is no way that the goverment could stop him from getting messages out denying fake videos. He has not. The only time he tried denying the attacks was when Afghanistan was trying to avoid being invaded.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Dude. Everybody IS looking at your stuff. We dont buy it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Don Roley said:


> Uh, do you?
> 
> It seems that you get some pretty dubious sources off of the internet that give you what you want, ignore everything that counters it and try to make it sound like you know more than anyone else. It is kind of an appeal to authority.
> 
> But after you try to silence the other side by saying that your sources (like the 'scholars for 9-11 truth) are so well informed that we are fools for even trying to argue with what they say, someone comes along and shows that your exerts are not what they try to say they are.
> 
> The authorties you list are silly and the arguments you make are not convincing. And the logic you use- isn't logical.
> 
> You have to think that all the tapes are fake and/or Osama is part of the conspiracy or dead. We know he can get tapes to Al-Jezera and onto the internet. If he had no part in 9-11 then neither he nor his subordinates would use images of the attacks as part of their videos. Yet they have. And if these tapes were faked by the goverment, then you can hardly expect him to remain silent about it as he has. He would have gotten messages out that there are fake videos supposably made by his associates and he would at some point would have gotten through.
> 
> Trying to point to a lot of nutty web sites run by people who try to sound knowledgable is useless when that simple train of logic is taken into account. There is no way that the goverment could stop him from getting messages out denying fake videos. He has not. The only time he tried denying the attacks was when Afghanistan was trying to avoid being invaded.


 
Like I said before Don, thats the beauty of a good conspiracy. Any evidence to the contrary can just be brushed aside as part of a wider conspiracy. Its self-perpetuating. Thing is, how far can you take it until its just plain ridiculous (well. thats an odd question when you look at the premise isnt it?)? When does a conspiranoid quit? Can he quit?


----------



## SFC JeffJ

upnorthkyosa said:


> Jeff
> 
> What stuff are you reading?  I would suggest you take a look at the two videos of the presentation I posted earlier.
> 
> I wonder if anyone has done that yet...


Yes I did look at the vids, and most of the stuff I've read was about a year ago on varios websites while I've since deleted the bookmarks I had so I can't say which specific ones.

I would be interested in reading any books that have come out on the matter if you could point some out to me.

Jeff


----------



## Blotan Hunka

And even if one of those tapes wasnt Osama. Why jump to the conclusion that the US manufactured it? It could just as easily (and more likely) be explained as Al Quaida (sp?) putting out a propaganda tape.


----------



## SFC JeffJ

Part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is that it gives the believer a sense of superiority, as they are "in the know" unlike everyone else.

That's a very powerful motivation.

Jeff


----------



## Blotan Hunka

JeffJ said:


> Part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is that it gives the believer a sense of superiority, as they are "in the know" unlike everyone else.
> 
> That's a very powerful motivation.
> 
> Jeff


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



> According to many psychologists, *a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories and conversely for a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory there is a lower probability that he, or she, will believe in another one*. [9] Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea[_citation needed_]. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.
> Evolutionary psychology may also play a significant role. Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior. Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions.


 


> *Clinical psychology*
> 
> For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome[12].


----------



## Jonathan Randall

This is nonsense. Anyone whose served a single day in uniform knows that large scale conspiracies are impossible to carry out. Occam's Razor. This does not mean that folks didn't take political advantage of this - but it does mean that an "inside job" is unlikely.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/19/cstillwell.DTL


> The underlying factors likely have more to do with psychology. Indeed, it is often said that conspiracy theories are born out of a sense of powerlessness. In the wake of Sept. 11 and the emergence of the nihilistic threat of Islamic terrorism, feelings of impotence and vulnerability were all too natural. All Americans were affected by such fears. *But instead of facing the daunting truth, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists chose the path of denial. *
> 
> *Immersed in a political belief system in which the United States (and Israel) is always the bad guy and never the victim, adherents refuse to give credence to any development that does not fit this narrative. So rather than blaming the perpetrators, they fall back on familiar demons.* After all, an enemy one can grapple with is much more appealing than the unknown. Such beliefs offer the tantalizing possibility that there's an explanation for a reality that all too often seems incomprehensible.


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> It seems that you get some pretty dubious sources off of the internet that give you what you want, ignore everything that counters it and try to make it sound like you know more than anyone else. It is kind of an appeal to authority.


 
It's not an appeal to authority.  And I find this paragraphy highly ironic.



> But after you try to silence the other side by saying that your sources (like the 'scholars for 9-11 truth) are so well informed that we are fools for even trying to argue with what they say, someone comes along and shows that your experts are not what they try to say they are.


 
Then who are they?



> The authorties you list are silly and the arguments you make are not convincing. And the logic you use- isn't logical.


 
Thanks for your opinion.



> You have to think that all the tapes are fake and/or Osama is part of the conspiracy or dead. We know he can get tapes to Al-Jezera and onto the internet. If he had no part in 9-11 then neither he nor his subordinates would use images of the attacks as part of their videos. Yet they have. And if these tapes were faked by the goverment, then you can hardly expect him to remain silent about it as he has. He would have gotten messages out that there are fake videos supposably made by his associates and he would at some point would have gotten through.


 
This is another assumption on your part.  It doesn't *have* to go down like that at all...



> Trying to point to a lot of nutty web sites run by people who try to sound knowledgable is useless when that simple train of logic is taken into account. There is no way that the goverment could stop him from getting messages out denying fake videos. He has not. The only time he tried denying the attacks was when Afghanistan was trying to avoid being invaded.


 
This is another assumption on your part.  Nobody really knows why OBL would deny involvement.  However, that denial presents problems to the official conspiracy theory.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> And even if one of those tapes wasnt Osama. Why jump to the conclusion that the US manufactured it? It could just as easily (and more likely) be explained as Al Quaida (sp?) putting out a propaganda tape.


 
Qui-bono.  That's why.  But, you could be right, too.  Who knows.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Like I said before Don, thats the beauty of a good conspiracy. Any evidence to the contrary can just be brushed aside as part of a wider conspiracy. Its self-perpetuating. Thing is, how far can you take it until its just plain ridiculous (well. thats an odd question when you look at the premise isnt it?)? When does a conspiranoid quit? Can he quit?


 
Did you know that the government's version of events is a conspiracy theory?  It states that 19 Arab hijackers, using box cutters, took control of four air craft and managed to crash three of them into some of the most heavily defended targets in our country.  This is despite the trillions of dollars we spent to defend them.

And, like any conspiracy theory, any evidence to the contrary can just be brushed aside as part of a wider conspiracy (terrorist recruiters). It's self-perpetuating. Thing is, how far can you take it until its just plain ridiculous.

Pretty dang far, if you look at the NIST report and all of the problems that exist with that.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Trillions of dollars to defend the trade centers? What all the secret rocket launchers on NYC rooftops and satellite death rays???
Why couldnt a hijacker take over a plane and crash it into a bldg? Its a simple extension of a suicide bomber in a truck driving into a bldg and detonating...that sound familiar to you?? Your confusing "conspiracy to commit a crime"; a legal term with "conspiracy theory" where you get to disbelieve any fact contrary to what you want to believe.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> Qui-bono. That's why. But, you could be right, too. Who knows.


 
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conspiracy_theory


> *Epistemic bias?*
> 
> It is possible that certain basic human epistemic biases are projected onto the material under scrutiny. According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause. The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events'&#8212;in which the president died&#8212;than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal.
> *Another epistemic 'rule of thumb' that can be misapplied to a mystery involving other humans is **cui bono**? (who stands to gain?). This sensitivity to the hidden motives of other people might be either an evolved or an encultured feature of human consciousness, but either way it appears to be universal. If the inquirer lacks access to the relevant facts of the case, or if there are structural interests rather than personal motives involved, this method of inquiry will tend to produce a falsely conspiratorial account of an impersonal event.* The direct corollary of this epistemic bias in pre-scientific cultures is the tendency to imagine the world in terms of animism. Inanimate objects or substances of significance to humans are fetishised and supposed to harbor benign or malignant spirits.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> Then who are they?


 
http://www.raptureready.com/photo/tulsa2/z56.jpg



> The first thing to know about scholars is that they are almost invariably the dumbest people on earth. Or, rather, outside of their fields of study (and oftentimes even in their fields) they are idiots. I would trust the average idiot on the street to fix my car than the entire collective of tenured professors on my campus. But, lucky for me, the scholars behind *Scholars for 9/11 Truth have absolutely no expertise in any field relevant to 9/11. *There is one exception: notable crackpot Robert Bowman who, like Ramsey Clark, uses previous government positions to validate their outrageous claims. Let us take a look at a few of the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Here I will list a scholar's name, followed by their central area of scholarship. In some cases, their inherent bias is shamelessly obvious:
> 
> Kevin Barrett, Folklore (no kidding?) at UW-Madison
> Tracy Blevins, Bioengineering at Rice University
> William Cook, Professor of English and author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-east Policy"
> Richard Curtis, Philosophy at Seattle University
> A.K. Dewdney, Mathematician at University of Western Ontario
> Daniele Glanser, Historian at Basel University
> Richard McGinn, Professor of Linguistics and Southeast Asian studies
> Raymond Munro, Professor of Theater at Clark University (Isn't it all theater?)
> 
> The real jokes, as pertaining to 9/11, are further at the bottom:
> 
> Chris Poate, carpenter
> E. Martin Schotz, citizen historian
> Harry Stottle, philosopher, author, and inventor
> Erik Champenois, student
> Noguns Sheehan, artist, rainbow woman, counter-cultural beader. Really: WTF?
> 
> And finally, some artists and musicians thrown in for good measure. I have not seen a group more unqualified for any given project since the US Congress. This ensemble of half-headed morons is a self-deprecating joke and should be grounds for committal to an asylum.


----------



## Makalakumu

Jonathan Randall said:


> This is nonsense. Anyone whose served a single day in uniform knows that large scale conspiracies are impossible to carry out. Occam's Razor. This does not mean that folks didn't take political advantage of this - but it does mean that an "inside job" is unlikely.


 
The problem with this assumption is that it puts the cart before the horse.  When people make this argument, they are basically using the question "how could this happen?" and their own unfounded assumptions about its possible answer to ignore whether or not it did happen.  Look at the evidence.  Figure out what happened.  Then figure out how it happened.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> http://www.raptureready.com/photo/tulsa2/z56.jpg


 
Except the physicists, structural engineers and other scientists who are publishing their studies.  Look, you can make ad hominem attacks all day, but it does nothing to actually address the arguments these people are making.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51858



> *Physics prof calls 9/11 conspiracist 'fruitcake'*
> 'Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion'
> 
> A University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.
> 
> Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists.
> Specifically, Barrett argues Bush officials rigged the World Trade Center with incendiary devices to bring it down and start a war against Islam.
> 
> *"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes.* Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> Except the physicists, structural engineers and other scientists who are publishing their studies. Look, you can make ad hominem attacks all day, but it does nothing to actually address the arguments these people are making.


 
"So you're suggesting that a history of ridiculous claims, isn't relavent to further ridiculous claims? Can you say 'Spinning'?" -SgtMac


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> Except the physicists, structural engineers and other scientists who are publishing their studies. Look, you can make ad hominem attacks all day, but it does nothing to actually address the arguments these people are making.


 

There are no structural engineers listed as members of the group, and note that the engineers involved with the scholars have little relevant work with the appropriate disciplines related to structural engineering or controlled demolitions, and also note that none of the research by the group members has yet to be published in any peer reviewed science journal. More recently, former members Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both Prof. Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies. Critics also note that of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, not one is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-scholars-for-911-truth.html


> Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.



*Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork???*







> Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?
> 
> So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons! (*BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!*)
> 
> The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.
> 
> So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!


----------



## Makalakumu

So, when are you going to defend NIST and stop making fallacious ad hominems?

I love how Dr. Jones is criticised for being a Morman.  Isn't bigotry wonderful!


----------



## hongkongfooey

This site should be investigated!

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


----------



## hongkongfooey




----------



## Makalakumu

hongkongfooey said:


> This site should be investigated!
> 
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


 
Most people who claim that certain phenomenon occur despite the fact that their explanation for said phenomenon violates the laws of physics are considered quacks, nuts, and conspiracy theorists.


----------



## bustr

For those who believe the governement:


----------



## Makalakumu

One of the problems with conspiracy theorists is that they try to limit the dissembling of the theory to their Gatekeepers.  In effect, what they are telling anyone who dares question their theory is that they are too dumb or ignorant to understand the finer points (usually esoteric and meaningless) of their theory.  This Gatekeeping does not take into an individuals education or the fact they may have done alot of work in order to understand the phenomenon in question.  This, in my opinion, is the ultimate tragedy regarding conspiracy theorists...the assumption that the masses are too stupid to decide for themselves, even if they've seen the relevant information.

The government's conspiracy theorists are no different then any others.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Dont you have a different tune?




Whats the frequency Kenneth?!?!


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> So, when are you going to defend NIST and stop making fallacious ad hominems?
> 
> I love how Dr. Jones is criticised for being a Morman. Isn't bigotry wonderful!


 
Must be convenient being able to use the opinions of nut jobs as "scientific facts". If there was a congressional committee studying say Bush that had evangelist christians in it youd be leading the charge. Im not the one holding up an obviously biased group of acedemics as the banner holder of my cause here. So we just have to believe what they say and their history/experience and bias cant enter into it? Give me a break...theyre nuts! And theyre UNQUALIFIED. If pointing that out is an attack to you I think that says more about you than me.

His religious beliefs dont bother me. The fact that one of his most noteworthy academic works is this bizzare paper, and his cold fusion fiasco, leads me to doubt anything he has to say about 9/11.

Ill believe the guys that actually know things about buildings and demolitions thank you very much.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

hongkongfooey said:


> This site should be investigated!
> 
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


 


> *BEWARE OF COMMERCIAL AFDBS:* Since you should trust no one, always construct your AFDB yourself to avoid the risk of subversion and mental enslavement. Sometimes, AFDBs will be sold on places like eBay. Do not purchase these pre-made AFDBs, even if the seller seems trustworthy. They may contain backdoors, pinholes, integrated psychotronic circuitry or other methods that actually promote mind control.


 
:rofl::rofl:


----------



## Blotan Hunka

This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Must be convenient being able to use the opinions of nut jobs as "scientific facts". If there was a congressional committee studying say Bush that had evangelist christians in it youd be leading the charge. Im not the one holding up an obviously biased group of acedemics as the banner holder of my cause here. So we just have to believe what they say and their history/experience and bias cant enter into it? Give me a break...theyre nuts! And theyre UNQUALIFIED. If pointing that out is an attack to you I think that says more about you than me.
> 
> His religious beliefs dont bother me. The fact that one of his most noteworthy academic works is this bizzare paper, and his cold fusion fiasco leads me to doubt anything he has to say about 9/11.


 
Digging up a bunch of crap to avoid talking about the actual points and facts that people bring up is typical of conspiracy theorists.  And so is screaming about peices of paper and other asanine red herrings.  The simple fact of the matter is that a person with HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS and the will to read the facts in this case can debunk the government's conspiracy theory.

All of this is just the typical conspiracy theorist gatekeeping.  They want to portray it so that no one, no matter how much work they do to understand the evidence, is ever capable of entering an opinion that disagrees with their little theory.


----------



## hongkongfooey

Charlie Sheen supports it so it must be true. 

http://http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JON20060322&articleId=2153


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf
Ill take that guys word over your 300 eggheads with no real world experience on this topic any day.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf

Just read the evidence man and have an open mind.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."
> 
> http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf


 
So, you want us to beleive the people who scrubbed the crime scene of evidence?  They helped cart everything away before it could be properly studied!  Conspiracy theorists are amazing!


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> So, you want us to beleive the people who scrubbed the crime scene of evidence? They helped cart everything away before it could be properly studied! Conspiracy theorists are amazing!



Hmmm..so anybody involved in the clean-up was involved in the conspiracy? "Jesus visited the Inca" professors opinions are good....experts in the demolitions fields opinions are bad? Wrap it a little tighter.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

..



> Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.





> Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of possession, as we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed activities that occurred at Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi, President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our team also reviewed commentary made by Dennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi&#8217;s Fresh Kills Site Supervisor, who oversaw the entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly and extensively at the National Demolition Association&#8217;s annual Convention in March 2003. According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to &#8220;rush&#8221; or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals &#8211; working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise &#8211; came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas. In consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion.


----------



## hongkongfooey

Aww come on Blotan. Everyone knows that George Bush sent in his presidential Ninja to plant the explosives.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf
> 
> Just read the evidence man and have an open mind.


 
Here are some problems with all of this...

1.  The buildings did not look like controlled demolitions.

Yes, it did.  WTC 1 and 2 substantially differed from WTC 7 so a different technique had to be used.

The assumption that rigging the building during the 55 minutes between the impact of the planes to the collapse of the buidings is a straw man.  No one ever claimed that this was the time frame that all of this had to be done.

And, in fact, there were other opportunities to do this before 9/11.

Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers _five days before_ 9-11

The Twin Towers had been evacuated a _number of times_ in the weeks preceding 9/11

There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.

And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.

2.  The buildings met alot of resistance during collapse and did not fall in their own footprint.

WTC 1 and 2 feel in roughly 10 seconds.  Even the government corroborates that.  This is one second slower then freefall speed.  If you look at the energy it would have taken to slow the building one second from free fall speed, it is not very much.  Certainly not much when one considers the structural resistance that the supporting columns should have provided.  

The fact that other buildings were damaged in the collapse indicates that the buildings were close together.  The bulk of the debris fell right into a pile at the base and the damage was surely less then if the collapse had been asymetrical.

3.  The squibs viewed were not the product of explosions, but were the product of air being forced out by pancaking floors.

Since even NIST has backpeddled on their Pancake Theory, this explanation has become obsolete.  No pancaking = no mechanism to force air out.

4.  Explosive testimony by eyewitnesses is subjective and seismic data should be used instead.  

According to this reports own addendum, siesmic data from the instruments they used was unreliable at best.  Further, if one takes into account the rapidity of collapse in a controlled demolition, and the synchonicity of the charges, separating the collapse vibrations from the explosive vibrations would be impossible.

5.  Molten steel was not found at the base of the world trade center.

Slag salvaged from the WTC site has been tested and shown to contain high amounts of iron...exactly what one would expect if steel was molten.  This corroborates eyewitness accounts of molten steel at the WTC site.  The fact that some eyewitnesses claim that they did not see any molten metal is trumped by the fact that this slag was found and tested.

6.  The debris was not quicly shipped away.

The official investigation into 9/11 did not begin for over a year after the event.  All of the debris was moved before this investigation began.  Thus, the assertion that the debris was shipped overseas before the investigation began stands.  NIST was only allowed to use 0.5% of the debris in order to investigate.

7.  WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, it received damage that caused it to collapse.

Not according to FEMA report which only reported damage to the south east corner.  This damage was assymetrical and in no way explains the completely symetrical collapse shown above.  Again, this violates the laws of physics.

8.  Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11, including the collapse of three steel framed buildings due to fire and extreme physical forces.

According to NIST, FEMA, and Silversteen/Wineberg insurance reports, the fire was considered the main cause of collapse.  This is due to the fact that none of the damage even came close to exceeding the structural overplanning inherit in all of the buildings.  

Further, it has been shown that the fires were not hot enough, did not burn long enough, and were not widespread enough to cause the collapse of these buildings.  

9.  If anyone knows of any studies that show hard evidence that explosives were used, please bring it to our attention.

This study will be published in the future in the Journal of 9/11 studies and perhaps in other journals that accept it after peer review.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Hmmm..so anybody involved in the clean-up was involved in the conspiracy? "Jesus visited the Inca" professors opinions are good....experts in the demolitions fields opinions are bad? Wrap it a little tighter.


 
Everybody is part of the conspiracy...

btw - that is the sweetest tin hat I've seen yet...props.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories
> 
> http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm


 
There are other opinions out there like this where people have done some looking into the demolition hypothesis and I have to say that some of the points they bring up against it ARE good points.  This is, IMHO, something that remains unproven in the scientific sense of the word.  

With that being said, I think it is something that bears looking into and I think this for two reasons.

A.  The governments version of events in insufficient in almost all ways at explaining the data present.
B.  Some of the evidence found seems to support the demolition hypothesis.

IMHO, if this hypothesis was disproven, it would be the best for everyone.  Like I said before, nobody wants to think that the government could do this and, if this is true, the implications threaten all that we wish to pass on to our children.  

The only way to disprove this, though, and find out what really happened is to fully investigate all of the data present.  I think that we need a new, fully independent, unbiased investigation that looks at all aspects of this.  We deserve to know the truth of this matter.

upnorthkyosa

ps - Another reason why another investigation may be warrented is because the official explanation is so insufficient in explaining how these buildings really went down.  Without knowing how this really happened, we basically are flying blind into situations where it could happen again...fires, accidents, natural disasters, etc.  This puts the lives of our rescue workers and the people who occupy these buildings at risk.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

hongkongfooey said:


> Aww come on Blotan. Everyone knows that George Bush sent in his presidential Ninja to plant the explosives.


 
Yeah. And I will believe the opinions of people who demolish buildings with explosives for a living when they say that the WTC in no way could have been a controlled event. Those who buy it are deluded at best and mentally disturbed at worst IMO.

This very topic on the eve of the anniversary is despicable.


----------



## hongkongfooey

Yeah, it does seem a bit arrogant to disregard the opinion of someone that brings buildings down for a living. 

If explosives were used to bring down the buildings, then why didn't the upper levels topple as soon as the planes hit the buildings? Let me guess the explosives were placed at lower levels. If that was the case why did the upper levels fail. Afterall, the Moonbats claim there was no way a fire could have caused the steel to fail.

I'll take my chances with the official report. Our government isn't perfect, but I don't believe that they were behind it.


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> So, you want us to beleive the people who scrubbed the crime scene of evidence?  They helped cart everything away before it could be properly studied!  Conspiracy theorists are amazing!



What a nice little way of avoiding dealing with anything that runs counter to what you want to believe. If it runs counter to the theory, the people must be in on the plot. And of course, you seem to be looking your nose down at other people for not seeing the same facts that you do.

But are you that knowledgable? You argue that the cameras were down on a weekend before 9-11 and many people ran around without being observed. That *must* have been the time that the explosives were set. 

I am not an expert in demolition, but I do know enough to know that a controlled explosion of a building takes *weeks* to set the explosives. And nothing the size of the WTC has ever been done. And the steel cores of the supports were surrounded by concrete. To set the explosives, possibly thousands of people would have had to blast through the concrete and set the charges in less than 48 hours. And nobody noticed and no one on the team has ever come forward out of guilt or accidently revealed information.

That is *just one* example of how a little bit of information has been blown (no pun intended) out of proportion and made to sound more than it is.

That is the thing with conspiracy theories and why the people that promote them the most are usually out of touch with reality. They can take little facts and try to put together a picture out of them. If there is anything they can't explain or prove, it is part of the conspiracy. The real nut cases tend to accept contradictiory thoughts on the matter. For example, the idea that people in the goverment involved in the clean up and investigation are actively trying to cover up information. And yet, the FBI is sometimes quoted by them (not indicating Osama and listing him as left handed, etc) to back up their arguments. (In the case of the right hand, most south paws are really ambi and can use their right to a certain extent when the left is slightly injured.)

They build bigger and bigger conspiracies to cover up holes being blown in their arguments. Instead of just going with the goverment being part of this, they have to now say that Osama Bin Laden is part of the plot since he has not done what anyone else would do when blamed with this and deny it on his propaganda videos. Al- Queada now use the attack as a claim to fame, thus they now must be part of the conspiracy. 

When you deal with reality, you have to deal with things that are not known. That is taken as "proof" by the conspiracy nuts. There will also be mistakes in remembering things, transmitting things and doing things. This will be considered as "proof" by the conspiracy nuts. And sometimes things happen that are highly unlikely, but happen anyway. A proffesor has a drill that he has never lost at. He has the entire class make up Xs or Os as if they were flipping a coin and reporting the results. One person does not and actually does flip a coin. Without fail the proffesor has always found the one real coin flip paper because people just can't get over how short term chances sometimes go. A real person would not think to put 9 straight heads in a row without some real thought, but it happens. So when a lot of really stupid things happen at once, people just can't believe that they were really just chance.

And some people who think they know more than the "sheeple" just would never admit that they were wrong, that they don't know as much as they want you to think.


----------



## Don Roley

Blotan Hunka said:


> This very topic on the eve of the anniversary is despicable.



I guess Bob has no problems with it if he is allowing it to go on. Part of the problem with the study (aside from some people that think that they can insult others because they pay money to martialtalk and get away with it) is the fact that those that have huge agendas (and the nut cases qualify) are looking for places to spread their lunacy. There are some people that almost never post about martial arts but have huge post counts due to their posting here. I expect things will get a lot worse as word gets out among the nutcases looking for places to convert others.


----------



## FearlessFreep

In defense of John, I wouldn't characterize him like that.  He posts fairly regularly about MA, especially his art of Tang Soo Do, and his experience in those areas has me reading those posts with a great deal of interest and respect.  I usually disagree with him political views to some degree, but that's just differences in opinion.  I think he's gone a little off in the 9/11 conspiracy theory angle, but I wouldn't put him in the category off a nutcase trolling for converts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Don,
 I'm going to take exception with this crack. There are at least 3 supporting members on the ban list that I can recall, including one who had sent in several hundred bucks. There are others who have offered some significant ad money to be allowed to continue to spam the site. So, I'm rather insulted that anyone would say "Pay Bob, Get Free Pass".

Now, if they think that, then they simply think wrong. And, if there are enough complaints, if after careful discussion among the staff, if it is deemed needed, people will be warned, suspended and possibly banned. No refunds. As a former moderator, you know this. 

But, so that things are clear to all:
- Take the personal issues off board
- If there is a real problem (and not just a personality clash) then report it.
- Don't bombard us with "Hes being a poopy head" level complaints.
- If one cannot handle the heat of this section, don't frequent it. It's political and religious and social debate. These will get heated. You will not agree. Such is life. Deal with it in a mature, adult, professional manner.
- Use the Ignore feature, and you will save much of your stomach lining.
- If you really think I am bribeable, send a WU for a few hundred bucks, then go to town. Butts have landed in the sand garden for much much less.

Any questions? Talk to me directly, or talk to my staff.

Now, we return you to your normal Black Ops discussion.




Don Roley said:


> I guess Bob has no problems with it if he is allowing it to go on. Part of the problem with the study (aside from some people that think that they can insult others because they pay money to martialtalk and get away with it) is the fact that those that have huge agendas (and the nut cases qualify) are looking for places to spread their lunacy. There are some people that almost never post about martial arts but have huge post counts due to their posting here. I expect things will get a lot worse as word gets out among the nutcases looking for places to convert others.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The theories will not go away because:

- There are blanks in what the government told us.
- People didn't like the answers they were given.
- People do not want to believe that such an attack could be independently organized, and put into motion without "inside help".
- Many things have come to light which puts more questions out there, hat currently ave no answer.
- The current administrations secretive actions since have made people wonder about things.


Now, my personal opinion is that there are those in the Bush administration who were directly involved in allowing those attacks to happen, that events have been manipulated so that we end up where we are now, a less-free society, ore gov. invasion into our lives, and wars of economic conquest in several countries.  But, I cannot point to a fact list and say "heres the smoking gun.".

I believe that the Secret Service was involved in the Kennedy assassination as well. Through leaving JFK unprotected, and destroying evidence afterwards. But, I can't prove it. I can just point to the various films and report and say "Read them, draw your own conclusions".

People will continue to look at the situation, and put their own spin on it. This is in fact, a good thing. It shows we can still think.  Our logic and facts may often appear warped and "crazy'', but sometimes, nuggets of truth are found in there.

No one wants to believe that the US would resort to secret torture camps, racial profiling, and engage in war profiteering. But recent leaks concerning secret CIA prisons, torture in US run camps, and strange financial anomalies with those companies "rebuilding" Iraq, lead intelligent & free thinking people to question what is going on.

And, to remain a free society, to regain that which in the panic of the night we allowed to be stripped from us, we, as patriotic Americans must continue to question our government, to take it to task, and demand it be accountable for what it does in our name. To do otherwise is to spit on the memory of everyone who sacrificed and died in the name of freedom, and America.


----------



## Kensai

I don't know that I believe every conspiracy theory, however, nor would I believe everything/anything much that Bush's administration reported. I don't think there's anything wrong with not believing what your govt tell you, in fact I think it's healthy not to. In my very humble opinion, most politicians I've ever met/spoken to are either liars or grossly incompetant. I've found the lower the MP, the better in fact. Ergo, as a result, while some conspiracy theories are perhaps just that, perhaps they may be better labelled "conspiracy fantasies" than theories, some however, may be close to the mark. 

As much as we like to think that there are universal truths, and there are some, there is also the concept of the truth depending upon a certain pov. I'd say staunch Republicans in the main probably would never accept that Bush's administration would be behind the 9/11 attacks, because as voters of that party, it's unpalatable to say the least. The same could be said in reverse of ardent democrats. "It was BUSH" they might cry, "he did it!"... Make no mistake though, this is now a world sized problem, and world sized crap has probably been fed to a lot of people. Misinformation in the current times is as important as information. If you (insert political party here) do have an agenda, then could it be seen as possible/probable that they would do anything to achieve that? Far fetched maybe, totally, and utterly, completely impossible....? I'd never put anything past Bush, or Blair, or any major leader of any major power. Sometimes the truth can be so simple as to be scary. I don't pretend to know what that truth is, but I do know that the world is going to hell in a hand cart, and B&B are in their own way, responsible for that.


----------



## Don Roley

Bob Hubbard said:


> Don,
> I'm going to take exception with this crack. There are at least 3 supporting members on the ban list that I can recall, including one who had sent in several hundred bucks. There are others who have offered some significant ad money to be allowed to continue to spam the site. So, I'm rather insulted that anyone would say "Pay Bob, Get Free Pass".




 

Take a look at what I wrote.



> aside from some people that think that they can insult others because they pay money to martialtalk and get away with it



I stated that my problem was with people who thought they could get away with things because they were paying members. I have seen one or two I can mention that took shots at someone right after a moderator dropped a warning into a thread. I did not mention any moderators or administration. I can understand why you would be distrurbed by a percieved personal attack on your honor having been the target of quite a few of them here myself. I apologize if you thought I was talking about you.


----------



## Don Roley

Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, my personal opinion is that there are those in the Bush administration who were directly involved in allowing those attacks to happen,



Now the problem I have with that is the fact that you have a whole lot of people involved in the intellegence gathering process as well as the decision making process. The idea that not even one of them balked at the idea of letting this plot go forward and went public, or had pangs of guilt and confessed, is not something I can believe. Even those not involved with the decision would be leaking what they know to the press. If say you were a transaltor that had helped to convert the plan into English, wouldn't you be really tempted to take the fact that you were working on detailed plans from the terrorists _weeks before 9-11_ to the networks? Tricky Dick could not keep a break in involving only a few people and killing no one a secret. Clinton was found  out about a BJ and lying under oath and there are not that many people involved in that act.

Dick Channey (or was it Rumsfield?) was at the Pentagon when it was hit. Considering that you never know everything that the other guy knows or how things are going happen, it is beyond the realm of belief that they would let someone that high up be at the site of an attack.

It is easier to believe the goverment knew something but did not act than in actually having a part. Especially if you don't like the guys in office to begin with. But if you look at just how large the amount of people that could blow the lid off of it, and that no one has come forward to confess, it is just too much to believe. Most people think that there is only a few people involved in intellegence gathering in cases like this. But the fact is, from the clerks to the translators to the minor case officers assembling the data, there would be a lot of folks that could have shown that we knew what was going on before the fact.


----------



## jazkiljok

Kensai said:


> I don't know that I believe every conspiracy theory, however, nor would I believe everything/anything much that Bush's administration reported. I don't think there's anything wrong with not believing what your govt tell you, in fact I think it's healthy not to. In my very humble opinion, most politicians I've ever met/spoken to are either liars or grossly incompetant. I've found the lower the MP, the better in fact. Ergo, as a result, while some conspiracy theories are perhaps just that, perhaps they may be better labelled "conspiracy fantasies" than theories, some however, may be close to the mark.
> 
> As much as we like to think that there are universal truths, and there are some, there is also the concept of the truth depending upon a certain pov. I'd say staunch Republicans in the main probably would never accept that Bush's administration would be behind the 9/11 attacks, because as voters of that party, it's unpalatable to say the least. The same could be said in reverse of ardent democrats. "It was BUSH" they might cry, "he did it!"... Make no mistake though, this is now a world sized problem, and world sized crap has probably been fed to a lot of people. Misinformation in the current times is as important as information. If you (insert political party here) do have an agenda, then could it be seen as possible/probable that they would do anything to achieve that? Far fetched maybe, totally, and utterly, completely impossible....? I'd never put anything past Bush, or Blair, or any major leader of any major power. Sometimes the truth can be so simple as to be scary. I don't pretend to know what that truth is, but I do know that the world is going to hell in a hand cart, and B&B are in their own way, responsible for that.



it's always entertaining to see how much credit that conspiratorists give our administration(s) in executing complex black ops actions that involved large numbers of people working around the world who are adept at near magical achievements, capable of concealing evidence of any size and quantity, and  extremely well-disciplined in keeping secrets to their dying days-- when the facts and reality point to an adminstration of immense ineptitude with an endless parade of leakers ready to point fingers.

add that to the fact that every future President, cia director, nsa director, fbi director would have to be also involved as well-- and you have to look at these conspiracy theorists in their true light.

no, this is not healthy skepticism. healthy skepticism is what we use to question the policies and political decisions based around the response to  9/11 and the direction that georgecondondick are taking us in iraq and afghanistan, iran, north korea etc.

conspiracy fantasies are just more denial of the times we live in, something to obsess over between dotting interest in celebrity meltdowns, brad pitt divorces and marriages, jonbonet, multimillionaire sports stars retirements, paris hilton sex vids and tom cruise's baby pix.


----------



## Don Roley

jazkiljok said:


> add that to the fact that every future President, cia director, nsa director, fbi director would have to be also involved as well-- and you have to look at these conspiracy theorists in their true light.



Good points. The more fervent people that believe in these theories have to believe that there is a force controlling the goverment and that all parties, both Democrat and Republican, are in on the plot. They have to. Because even if the current administration looked the other way and let the plot go through, there would be no way they could prevent future administrations from running to the public with the truth. So you find some of the sites are talking about the Illuminati and such. I just saw one the other day. I will see if I can find it again and post it here.

Edit- here is the link.
http://www.planetquo.com/Loony-9-11-Conspiracy-Theories

It is kind of hard to believe that they are being serious based on the title and the sheer lunacy of what they have on the site. But they honestly seem to be serious.



> One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th - and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs - is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they 'hate our freedoms.'



And this part of their site has to be seen to be believed.

http://www.planetquo.com/Illuminati-Design-And-Symbolism-In-The-Israeli-Supreme-Court-Building


----------



## Makalakumu

The problem with these arguments is that governments, including ours, have been performing either MIHOP or LIHOP False Flag Operations for millenia.  And many of these operations WERE kept secret for many years, sometimes decades, before the secrets broke.  What this demonstrates is that it IS possible for an amount of people to keep a secret for awhile.

While I appreciate the idealism of the veiw that SOMEONE would just come forward, I think that if viewed through a historical lense, we should not place our faith in that.

BTW - Morgan Reynolds was a Bush Administration official.  He has come forward...but IMHO, he discredits himself by taking what he came forward with and attempting to expand upon it by delving into the "No Plane" theories.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Yeah. And I will believe the opinions of people who demolish buildings with explosives for a living when they say that the WTC in no way could have been a controlled event.


 
The problem with this argument is that it is nothing more then Gatekeeping.  It implies that one needs a peice of paper in order to understand something.  

The argument posted above makes some valid points in some areas, but in others it is lacking.  I've addressed the points that I felt I could address and I've conceeded that their are still problems with the demolition hypothesis.

However, compared to the NIST report and the governments explanation of things, the demolition hypothesis fits better.  In order to understand this, you have got to take a look at the NIST report just to see how bad it is.  

This of course, does not imply that there might be still better hypothesis that explain the data.  Both NIST and demolition could turn out to be wrong.


----------



## jazkiljok

upnorthkyosa said:


> The problem with these arguments is that governments, including ours, have been performing either MIHOP or LIHOP False Flag Operations for millenia.  And many of these operations WERE kept secret for many years, sometimes decades, before the secrets broke.  What this demonstrates is that it IS possible for an amount of people to keep a secret for awhile.
> 
> While I appreciate the idealism of the veiw that SOMEONE would just come forward, I think that if viewed through a historical lense, we should not place our faith in that.



could you please be specific to what operations you are referring to? (just name two or three) -- if i know what exactly you are referring to, i will be able better to respond.

thanks


----------



## Makalakumu

I have a better idea.  Lets take a long standing conspiracy that is pretty well decided by people who have been studying it.

It is well established that JFK was not killed by LHO.  He was killed by a conspiracy of a large number of people in the government that participated in everything from the actual killing to the covering up and the subsequent investigation.  Jack Kennedy was killed in 1962 and no one has come forward yet.

The evidence that exists is enough to overwhelm the Warren Commission Report and a conspiracy hypothesis.  If someone came forward at this date, all it would do is establish an actual chain of guilt...depending on how its spun politically.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

jazkiljok said:


> could you please be specific to what operations you are referring to? (just name two or three) -- if i know what exactly you are referring to, i will be able better to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks



Good luck on that sir. This is what you get...



upnorthkyosa said:


> It is *well established*(WTF??!!) that JFK was not killed by LHO.


 
Oh my lord.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspir...ogical_origins



> According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories and conversely for a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory there is a lower probability that he, or she, will believe in another one.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Oh my lord.


 
So, do you think that JFK was taken down by the magic bullet?  Do you know what they call people who believe in things that violate the laws of physics?  Nuts.  Crackpots.  Conspiracy Theorists.  etc...


----------



## crushing

Tonight's Nova on PBS was about the second WTC attack and the experts explanation on why the towers came down as well as a look at NIST recomendations for building safety.  They also discussed the world's next tallest building in Shanghai and the safety measures they are taking with that.  It was pretty interesting.


----------



## jazkiljok

upnorthkyosa said:


> I have a better idea.  Lets take a long standing conspiracy that is pretty well decided by people who have been studying it.
> 
> It is well established that JFK was not killed by LHO.  He was killed by a conspiracy of a large number of people in the government that participated in everything from the actual killing to the covering up and the subsequent investigation.  Jack Kennedy was killed in 1962 and no one has come forward yet.
> 
> The evidence that exists is enough to overwhelm the Warren Commission Report and a conspiracy hypothesis.  If someone came forward at this date, all it would do is establish an actual chain of guilt...depending on how its spun politically.



it seemed you were referring to historically documented operations, not other conspiracy theories. can you without putting your own certify stamp of approval on it, name just a few of these false flag operations that were exposed at a later date? if you need an example, let me know.


----------



## OUMoose

upnorthkyosa said:


> Do you know what they call people who believe in things that violate the laws of physics? Nuts. Crackpots. Conspiracy Theorists. etc...


I thought they were called "evangelicals" or "Bush Supporters"... 

*ducks the flames*  C'mon people.. it was funny....  Sheesh.

I don't have enough engineering background to comment on the metallurgy discussions going on, nor the physics background to add to the investigation of the trajectory of the blasts vs. falling mass impact.  However, when I can open up Digg and see 5 pages from 5 different respected news sites with various officials (Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney at the moment) all spouting different stuff about involvment in the atrocity, all DIRECTLY in opposition of what the "9/11 commission report" came out with, that doesn't turn any heads?  It turns mine.


----------



## Hand Sword

Why won't they go away?


Easy! The elections haven't happened yet.


----------



## Makalakumu

jazkiljok said:


> it seemed you were referring to historically documented operations, not other conspiracy theories. can you without putting your own certify stamp of approval on it, name just a few of these false flag operations that were exposed at a later date? if you need an example, let me know.


 
The reason I brought this up is because as far as the point regarding people not talking, this one is probably the best example.  Another good example of something heinous that involved lots of people was still managed to stay secret is MKULTRA and MKDELTA.  These were the CIA mind control studies that involved physical, mental, and sexual torture.  Participants were often drugged and blackmailed and over all, it was pretty unbelievable.  However, this stuff really did happen.  And it was kept secret for 25 years.

Anyway, one that I was thinking about was the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  This was a MIHOP.


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> The reason I brought this up is because as far as the point regarding people not talking, this one is probably the best example.



Because they have nothing to talk about.

Your example of the Gulf of Tonkin incident is better. But it fails to take into account that it was found out. And it was not a situation where Americans either harmed Americans or let Americans get killed.

The amount of people to pull off a conspiracy like this, or even merely to stay silent while it happened, would be huge and someone would balk and go public or something would go wrong and be discovered. How many people can you find that are trustworthy, competent and willing to kill a few thousand of their own people?

It just does not make logical sense. For example, some people have tried to claim that some of the people that appear in the list of hijackers and on the tapes by Al Quaeda are still alive. Not only is it not true when you dig a little, but the very idea of them being alive is nuts if you think the goverment set up the attacks. You manage to pull something off this large, this well and are willing to kill 2973 people and you don't make sure that the suicide troops you have framed are picked up, shot and their bodies never found?


----------



## jazkiljok

Don Roley said:


> Because they have nothing to talk about.
> 
> Your example of the Gulf of Tonkin incident is better. But it fails to take into account that it was found out. And it was not a situation where Americans either harmed Americans or let Americans get killed.
> 
> The amount of people to pull off a conspiracy like this, or even merely to stay silent while it happened, would be huge and someone would balk and go public or something would go wrong and be discovered. How many people can you find that are trustworthy, competent and willing to kill a few thousand of their own people?
> 
> It just does not make logical sense. For example, some people have tried to claim that some of the people that appear in the list of hijackers and on the tapes by Al Quaeda are still alive. Not only is it not true when you dig a little, but the very idea of them being alive is nuts if you think the goverment set up the attacks. You manage to pull something off this large, this well and are willing to kill 2973 people and you don't make sure that the suicide troops you have framed are picked up, shot and their bodies never found?



i agree with your assessment-- i would add that interestingly the Tonkin incident was about something that "didn't" happen, not something that did. it was a phantom attack that led LBJ to getting is GoT Resolution passed.

I would like to also point out that folks forget that we had a small thing called Watergate in our recent history. a lesson in how one of the most politically saavy and powerful presidents in our history had his presidency dragged down over a little break-in. if such a small criminal act couldn't be contained and covered up, it's hard to imagine (though i'm sure everyone who does will keep on) how one the scope and size of 9/11 could have any hopes of succeeding. 

peace.


----------



## bustr

> if such a small criminal act couldn't be contained and covered up, it's hard to imagine (though i'm sure everyone who does will keep on) how one the scope and size of 9/11 could have any hopes of succeeding.



Unless both parties are in on it.


----------



## tradrockrat

bustr said:


> Unless both parties are in on it.



and the freemasons


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Dont forget the Illuminati, and their chapter groups; Skull and Bones, The Star Chamber, the Boy Scouts of America, The Pope, and Col. Sanders. 

*Stuart Mackenzie:* Well, it's a well known fact, Sunny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows. 
*Tony Giardino:* So who's in this Pentavirate? 
*Stuart Mackenzie:* The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went **** up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eye! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!" 
*Charlie Mackenzie:* Dad, how can you hate "The Colonel"? 
*Stuart Mackenzie: *Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass! 
*Charlie Mackenzie:* Coo-coo.




Advice


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Criminal Conspiracy 

*VS*

Conspiracy Theory


I think some are confusing the 2.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Panoply of the Absurd



> It's a panoply of the absurd and yet entirely of this world. Historian Dieter Groh writes that conspiracy theorists "represent a constant temptation for all of us" because they are a constant in western history. According to Groh, "the historical sequence before the French Revolution is one of Jews, heretics, witches, followed by Jews, Communists, capitalists, and secret services" after the revolutionary year of 1789.
> 
> As diverse as these theories and their adherents may be,* they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons*. According to this way of thinking, it would be impossible for a small group of Islamists to strike such a damaging surprise blow against superpower USA, with all its weapons and intelligence services.
> 
> "The wonderful thing about a conspiracy theory is that it allows you to understand everything perfectly," says American political scientist Michael Barkun in an effort to explain the continued success of conspiracy theories. It "discloses to you that all the evil in the world can be attributed to a single cause, and that THEY are this cause, whoever they might be."





> These are all little more than whispers in the dark. One thing is certain, however: The myth of a Jewish conspiracy began making the rounds on the internet shortly after the attacks. According to this tale, 4,000 Jews who worked in the World Trade Center didn't report to work on September 11th. This means that the Jews knew about it, since the Mossad must have planned the attack.
> 
> This theory is considered a matter of course in the Arab countries. It was first brought to life by the Lebanese TV station al-Manar, which proudly announces on its web site that it is conducting "psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy."
> 
> Abraham Foxman of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in New York knows all too well just how tough this perfidious rumor is. He has often tried to use the figures at his disposal to dispense with the rumor. His employees counted the Jewish victims of the attack, and Foxman says that there were at least 400, and probably more. There are no official figures, since US authorities do not document religious affiliation.



This article is an excellent and thorough exploration into the phenomena this thread started out with.


----------



## Hand Sword

Blotan Hunka said:


> Dont forget the Illuminati, and their chapter groups; Skull and Bones, The Star Chamber, the Boy Scouts of America, The Pope, and Col. Sanders.


 

No! Not the Colonel too! But, now that you think about it....A bucket with many different "versions" of chicken.....Sounds like a payoff fit for the factions of D.C.


----------



## tradrockrat

Hand Sword said:


> No! Not the Colonel too! But, now that you think about it....A bucket with many different "versions" of chicken.....Sounds like a payoff fit for the factions of D.C.




MOM!

The Republicans are such side hogs!


----------



## Hand Sword

Next, it will come out that Ronald and the King were apart of this.


----------



## Makalakumu

You guys are all mind controlled.

Thank goodness I've got my hat.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

LOL!


----------



## Don Roley

Hand Sword said:


> Next, it will come out that Ronald and the King were apart of this.



How else would you get a global conspiracy set up in the open on every corner?

Yeah, Ronald is not just a part of it, his restraunts are the local HQs all over the world.


----------



## jazkiljok

upnorthkyosa said:


> You guys are all mind controlled.
> 
> Thank goodness I've got my hat.




we buy sneakers for 100 dollars that only cost 40 cents to make. We drive massive gas guzzling vehicles for our long commutes even though we can barely afford the cost of gas. We spend $3.50 for a quarter cup of heated milk mixed with water and some miniscule coffee bean matter, and we do that everyday. We buy cameras that can store 5000 pictures but can't afford to actually make prints of most of them.  We spend countless hours on our computers aimlessly communicating with strangers about an endless range of topics and spend the most time communicating with the strangers that we disagree with. 

we vote for politicians who promise us everything and deliver nothing and 4 years later- we vote for them again.

mind control?

say.. can i borrow one of those tin foil hats?:erg:


----------



## Makalakumu

jazkiljok said:


> we buy sneakers for 100 dollars that only cost 40 cents to make. We drive massive gas guzzling vehicles for our long commutes even though we can barely afford the cost of gas. We spend $3.50 for a quarter cup of heated milk mixed with water and some miniscule coffee bean matter, and we do that everyday. We buy cameras that can store 5000 pictures but can't afford to actually make prints of most of them. We spend countless hours on our computers aimlessly communicating with strangers about an endless range of topics and spend the most time communicating with the strangers that we disagree with.
> 
> we vote for politicians who promise us everything and deliver nothing and 4 years later- we vote for them again.
> 
> mind control?
> 
> say.. can i borrow one of those tin foil hats?:erg:


 
I've stapled mine on...


----------



## Blotan Hunka

jazkiljok said:


> We spend countless hours on our computers aimlessly communicating with strangers about an endless range of topics and spend the most time communicating with the strangers that we disagree with.


 
To be honest, thats the most fun. Talking to people you agree with gets damn boring.


----------



## bustr




----------



## Don Roley

bustr said:


>



That is the second time you have posted that image. And you did not seem to learn from the first time that no one responded because they found it so amusing that they need not.

By posting an image of people who believe that there was no conspiracy by the goverment as an ostrich, you say that you are more intelligent and knowlegeable than them. You state that you can see things that other people can't see. Thus you are smarter than them.

Ok, well since you are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, please tell us in exact terms how someone could have set explosive charges on the steel beams of the world trade center within less than a weekend when no one has been able to take less than a few weeks in bringing down a building by the same means. And you can tell us how they managed to do it without people noticing when it went on or afterwards. Remember, as a smart guy like you are, that the steel beams were surrounded by concrete. So tell us how people could get to the steel through the concrete in only a few hours without anyone noticing large movements of people, the noise or the aftereffects.

And maybe you can tell us, with you superior intellect, how a conspiracy of both parties could run not only a scam that brought down both towers, but had the manpower to concoct evidence to blame someone else that were not involved. Then you can tell us how despite the ruthless efficiency that they showed, they could leave several members  that  supposably died in a suicide attack free and running around to give the lie of the big conspiracy.

I want you, with your superior intellect, to give exact facts that we can check for ourselves and reach the level of understanding that you evidently feel you have and the rest of us do not. 

If you truely think that we are not able to see the full picture, then you would be willing to lead us through the process of understanding. If you merely post pictures that make us look like we are ostriches, then you can't blame us if we conclude that you have no facts to back up what you accuse and are merely trying desperatly to show that you have even a small portion of the brains that the rest of us have.


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> By posting an image of people who believe that there was no conspiracy by the goverment as an ostrich, you say that you are more intelligent and knowlegeable than them. You state that you can see things that other people can't see. Thus you are smarter than them.


 
Don, there has been plenty of disrespect for others in this thread...especially for people who have a few questions.


----------



## Makalakumu

Don Roley said:


> Ok, well since you are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, please tell us in exact terms how someone could have set explosive charges on the steel beams of the world trade center within less than a weekend when no one has been able to take less than a few weeks in bringing down a building by the same means. And you can tell us how they managed to do it without people noticing when it went on or afterwards. Remember, as a smart guy like you are, that the steel beams were surrounded by concrete. So tell us how people could get to the steel through the concrete in only a few hours without anyone noticing large movements of people, the noise or the aftereffects.
> 
> And maybe you can tell us, with you superior intellect, how a conspiracy of both parties could run not only a scam that brought down both towers, but had the manpower to concoct evidence to blame someone else that were not involved. Then you can tell us how despite the ruthless efficiency that they showed, they could leave several members that supposably died in a suicide attack free and running around to give the lie of the big conspiracy.


 
This argument rests on the assumption that the government cannot do such a thing.  And I have to wonder how the people who make this argument know that the government cannot do such a thing.  Our discussion above regarding the fact that the government has done a number of heinous things and hidden and/or covered them up for years is very relevant.  The bottom line is that it has been shown that 1000s of people *can* keep a secret.

The other problem with this argument is that it is used to ignore evidence.  The assumption that the government could never have pulled something like this off prevents the person from seeing whether or not they really pulled it off.  If the evidence mounts and it becomes clear that this was a controlled demolition, then it must have happened somehow.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense, it is only a gap in what we know.

With that being said, am I skeptical that the government could do something like this?  Yes.  I think you summed it up nicely.  If this really happened and all of these people worked together, then we've got some serious problems in this country.  I would say that if something like this really happened, everyone of our institutions would have to be corrupted in some way.  This is not a pretty thought (and I think that many people who question this stuff, understand this).

As improbable as all of this is to our sensibilities, it is not impossible.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Its not "impossible" that alien ships knocked them down with death rays either...the aliens that have that deal with the neocons like on the X-Files. Its also not "impossible" that a guy convicted of murder on DNA evidence that said his matched the killers by a factor of 7 billion to 1 didnt do it. Its not "impossible" that the government pulled off a demolition that professional demo guys who actually do that stuff for a living couldn't do so conspiracy theorists can continue on with their little fantasy's. At some point "unlikely" reaches such a level that for all intents and purposes it is "impossible". The "isnt it possible?" argument reminds me of a court case. I think the facts here show that the towers couldnt have been prepped for demo clandestinely "beyond a reasonable doubt".


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Its not "impossible" that the government pulled off a demolition that professional demo guys who actually do that stuff for a living couldn't do so conspiracy theorists can continue on with their little fantasy's.


 
For a guy who was privy to so many details, not many were really shared in the source that you cite.  For example, I would be very interested to see a step by step analysis of the buildings structure and some specific details showing how the buildings could come down.  And I would like to see a comparison made between what was observed.

Instead of that technical analysis, what we got from this source is a bunch of arguments that basically tell us that we shouldn't trust what our eyes see and what our ears hear.  

All in all, as far as the content went, it really didn't do the job that it could have and I think that my responses are telling...



> At some point "unlikely" reaches such a level that for all intents and purposes it is "impossible". The "isnt it possible?" argument reminds me of a court case. I think the facts here show that the towers couldnt have been prepped for demo clandestinely "beyond a reasonable doubt".


 
Unlikely is a subjective term that is determined by our bias.  And, from what I have read in this debate, there have been no "facts" presented that show that the buildings could not have been prepped in secret.  

Thus far, a number of technologic hurdles have been addressed and assumptions have been made regarding the ability of the government to overcome them, but NO ONE has shown that the government would be UNABLE to overcome those hurdles.

There is a big difference between assuming something can't be done and actually showing that it can't be done.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

So for every terrorist attack we now have to PROVE that our own government didnt do it??? Prove to me it wasnt alien death rays.

Try the shiny side out.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=183630#post183630



rmcrobertson said:


> Yeah, it never fails to amaze me. On one hand, these guys are such geniuses that NOONE BUT AN ENLIGHTENED FEW EVER SUSPECT THE TRUTH, and on the other, they continually screw up.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an ugly little joke I recently read:
> 
> 
> 
> "How do you know the CIA wasn't involved in the JFK assassination?"
> 
> 
> 
> "He's dead, isn't he?"
> 
> 
> 
> But my favorite fantasy is the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were some sort of criminal masterminds, and/or ninjas. They were a bunch of mean little creeps with a little knowledge and a fair amount of willingness.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the reason people jack up these bizarre theories lies in the fact that they don't want to face reality. It's hard to accept the fact that we live in an extraordinarily-complex, technologically-sophisticated but oddly delicate world--and in such a world, the fact is, anybody who's willing and has three brain cells to rub together can do a considerable amount of damage.
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that this particular set of conspiracy fantasies has some quite ugly roots in anti-Semitism and what Edward Said identified as Orientalism. You know--at home, it's the Insidious Trilateral Commission and the International Monetary Fund, and abroad it's whatever version of the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu we believe in at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, at least it's entertaining. In the same vein as the last poster, I truly enjoyed the website explanations that argued that because the Us Air Force had been working on pilotless drones, the planes that flew into the Trade Center must have been remote controlled. Among their backup evidence was the repeated mention that this plane or that plane WAS ONLY 27% FILLED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the people from the future did it. See the movie, "Millenium."


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> So for every terrorist attack we now have to PROVE that our own government didnt do it??? Prove to me it wasnt alien death rays.


 
You were the one who claimed to have shown that the government couldn't do it.  I said that your claim rested on the assumption that they could not do it, not on any facts.


----------



## Don Roley

upnorthkyosa said:


> This argument rests on the assumption that the government cannot do such a thing.  And I have to wonder how the people who make this argument know that the government cannot do such a thing.



Because something this size would require thousands of people to set up the attack and blame someone else. It would take highly skilled explosive experts doing things that no one has been able to do before, people faking video and audio tapes, taking care of eliminating individuals and much, much more.

And none of them would be able to come forward and tell the world and not one of them would screw up and reveal the plot.

That has never been done before on a project of this scale. Tricky Dick had less than 20 people involved in the Watergate break in and it was blown out of the water because someone thought that one political party breaking into another's headquarters was wrong. So in the thousands of people involved in the murder of Americans, can we expect all of them to remain silent?

And the physical parts of the thing are just silly. The idea that people could set explosives by cutting through concrete to get to the steel beams in just a few hours without anyone noticing  while they were doing it or afterwards is impossible. So is the idea that they could do all this, and yet not capture, kill and hide the bodies of the patsies. People are pointing to (false) reports that some of the hijackers are still alive as 'proof' that there was a conspiracy. Well that kind of thinking is not based in reality or logic at all.


----------



## jazkiljok

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14941552/

ok- so here we have cia agents refusing to do the bidding of the adminstration because the recent ruling on their activity made them fear that they may be working illegally if they continued.

think about it.

or


don't.


----------



## jazkiljok

i believe anyone who hasn't watched the most recent episode on SOUTH PARK-- should. funny as crap. literally. oh, and it's all about the 9/11 conspiracy theories too.


http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_episode.php?season=10&id1=1009&id2=152


----------



## Mr. E

This seems a good time and a good place to post this.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4


----------



## Big Don

The batsh t crazy kooks that bring up Operation Northwoods are actually saying the Sainted Kennedy family plotted to kill Americans, you know, aside from Mary Jo Kopecne...


----------



## Big Don

Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...
The same reason some people think Elvis and/or Jim Morrisson are still alive, namely, there are a lot of stupid people out there. It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who claim the Bush admnistration is hopelessly incompetent also claim the Bush administration are the evil geniuses behind 9-11.


----------



## Just Torry

Hi, I'm new so excuse me for posting here, but, I'd like to say that if George Bush had the ability to pull off the 9/11 attacks, he would probably have the resources to hide a few WMD's in the middle of a barren desert.


----------



## Makalakumu

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



> *True-believer syndrome* is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book _The Psychic Mafia_. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.[1] It has since been applied, more loosely, to refer to any belief without empirical or logical foundations. Keene himself considered it to be a cognitive disorder,[2][3] and regarded it as being a key factor in the success of many mediums.[1] The term "true believer syndrome" is not used professionally by mainstream psychologists, psychiatrists or medical professionals and it is not recognised as a form of psychopathology or psychological impairment.
> *
> *


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Elvis rigged the towers for demo.

Conspiracy wackos have some sort of mental issues. I wonder if its in the DSM-IV?

This guy has some interesting info on how this conspiracy phenomenon could be related to PTSD.


----------



## Big Don

upnorthkyosa said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_believer_syndrome
> 
> [/b]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
The term BDS refers to a purported tendency by some American liberals to blame President George W. Bush for virtually every ill in the world.[3][4] It also purportedly refers to opposing a position advocated by the President just because he supports it, regardless of the position's merits.[5] The term has been used in newspaper columns and editorials, on talk radio, on FOX News, and in the conservative blogosphere.
 Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist, defined BDS as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidencynaythe very existence of George W. Bush".[2][6] The term reflects a belief that some criticisms of President Bushfor example, a description of President Bush as the greatest current threat to American livesare of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic.[7


----------



## OUMoose

Big Don said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
> The term BDS refers to a purported tendency by some American liberals to blame President George W. Bush for virtually every ill in the world.[3][4] It also purportedly refers to opposing a position advocated by the President just because he supports it, regardless of the position's merits.[5] The term has been used in newspaper columns and editorials, on talk radio, on FOX News, and in the conservative blogosphere.
> Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist, defined BDS as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency&#8212;nay&#8212;the very existence of George W. Bush".[2][6] The term reflects a belief that some criticisms of President Bush&#8212;for example, a description of President Bush as the greatest current threat to American lives&#8212;are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic.[7



/sarcasm on

Soo...  Anyone who disagrees with Heir Dubya is now labelled as "sick"?  Man, it's a good thing that all those "black sites" were created, as now they can be renamed "mental health facilities" and these people can be brainwa... Ummm.. I mean "mentally sanitized"... you know, for their own saftey.

/sarcasm off


----------



## Big Don

OUMoose said:


> /sarcasm on
> 
> Soo...  Anyone who disagrees with Heir Dubya is now labelled as "sick"?  Man, it's a good thing that all those "black sites" were created, as now they can be renamed "mental health facilities" and these people can be brainwa... Ummm.. I mean "mentally sanitized"... you know, for their own saftey.
> 
> /sarcasm off


Not at all, disagree all you like, however, if you fixate on President Bush as "worse than hitler", Evil Rovian puppet, etc, you may have a problem...
Ron Paul, andThe Democratic candidates for the presidency are all railing against Bush, that is kind of stupid, as he isn't running...


----------



## Mr. E

Blotan Hunka said:


> This guy has some interesting info on how this conspiracy phenomenon could be related to PTSD.



I think that it needs more study. Not enough evidence to really back up what he believes.

I do wonder if mental instability leads to believing in conspiracy theories, or if it is the other way around.

Most of the people heavily involved in conspiracy theories seem very reluctant to open their eyes to new information that might prove them wrong. After about thirty times of having thier smoking gun turn out to be a wet firecracker a normal person would admit that there really was not much to the central idea and give up.

But not the die- hard conspiracy buff. They just keep chugging along with the true believer syndrome and create bigger and bigger conspiracies to avoid having to face the fact that they are wrong.

Right after 9-11 there was some denials by Bin Laden about the attacks. People could be excused for thinking maybe someone else did it. And some people thought that the government might be behind it.

But later it turned out that Bin Laden did do it. So the conspiracy buffs had to expand their theory so that all the evidence that Bin Laden did it was fake.

But now that it is really clear that Bin Laden did it and is taking credit for the attacks, they have to now try to say that Bin Laden carried out the attacks _because he was working with the government._ :erg:

So how long can someone keep their sanity when they have to keep coming up with new and bigger theories to avoid admiting that they were wrong and the government they hate is not as bad as they said?


----------



## OUMoose

Mr. E said:


> *snip*
> So how long can someone keep their sanity when they have to keep coming up with new and bigger theories to avoid admitting that they were wrong and the government they hate is not as bad as they said?



How long can someone keep their sanity when they have to keep coming up with new and bigger theories to avoid admitting that the "conspiracy theorists" they hate might have a point and not be as bad as they said?

Perception can be an evil thing.  The truth/fact/crux/meat of the matter is that the only people who really know what's going are are the people in power, and they're not talking.  Why don't they talk?  To breed infighting.  Read this thread, and the Bin Laden Tape thread.  Is it about logical discourse about the facts of the tape and it's legitimacy?  Nope.  It boils down to 2 groups of people calling each other crackpots or sheep.  There's no united front to try to find the truth.  This is the same reason our men and women overseas are getting killed instead of being brought home.  We're too busy fighting each other instead of fighting those in power to effect the change that the "polls" say we want, but no one can seem to get done.  

Sorry if this is a de-rail, but it seemed to fit, at least in my head.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

OUMoose said:


> How long can someone keep their sanity when they have to keep coming up with new and bigger theories to avoid admitting that the "conspiracy theorists" they hate might have a point and not be as bad as they said?
> 
> Perception can be an evil thing. The truth/fact/crux/meat of the matter is that the only people who really know what's going are are the people in power, and they're not talking. Why don't they talk? To breed infighting. Read this thread, and the Bin Laden Tape thread. Is it about logical discourse about the facts of the tape and it's legitimacy? Nope. It boils down to 2 groups of people calling each other crackpots or sheep. There's no united front to try to find the truth. This is the same reason our men and women overseas are getting killed instead of being brought home. We're too busy fighting each other instead of fighting those in power to effect the change that the "polls" say we want, but no one can seem to get done.
> 
> Sorry if this is a de-rail, but it seemed to fit, at least in my head.


 
About the sanest post in this thread from where I sit.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Sorry, but anybody who really believes that 9/11 was an organized gvt. plot, but the same gvt. couldnt frame Saddam with a few well placed WMD's. And that the towers were somehow prepped for demolotion by gvt "spooks" under the noses of thousands, is for lack of a word....a crackpot.

And to label me a "true believer", while the tin hatters have the "truth"? priceless.


----------



## Mr. E

OUMoose said:


> How long can someone keep their sanity when they have to keep coming up with new and bigger theories to avoid admitting that the "conspiracy theorists" they hate might have a point and not be as bad as they said?



If there was any proof, any at all, there might be a case for the conspiracy theorists.

But so far, everything comes down to conjecture, exageration and sometimes outright lying.

Just a few days ago, someone linked to a story by the Guardian about how someone _might_ fake a tape from OBL and tried to say that it was proof that it was.

After about the tenth time you see that sort of thing happen, you tend to look on everything with a critical eye. That people would try to decieve others to press their theory shows that there is either some mental imbalance or an agenda.

No one here is saying that the Gulf of Tonkin thing or Watergate did not happen. We can accept that the government is not always the standard of truth and justice. But pulling off a 9-11 conspiracy to frame terrorists would require a heck of a lot more people ruthless enough to kill thousands of men, women and children from their own country, pull it off without a hitch and have no one go to the public with the story. That is a much taller order to believe and it is natural that reasonable people demand some sort of proof.

Take a look at the people that push these types of theories sometime. A lot of them think that the CIA killed JFK or that we never went to the moon. The hatred they have for America as we know it is pretty intense.

So is it silly to require some sort of proof from such obvious partisan folks such as these? And there has not been any sort of proof that stands up to the light of speculation. Most arguments just seem to revolve around throwing out as many web site addresses as possible and hope that no one really looks into any one claim to hard to convince folks that there is a conspiracy by the government.

As someone said,



> For some reason, when I get on a website that gives the same weight to crackpot Nazis that it gives to everything else on the site, I tend to assume that everything on the site is nuts. Even when there's aren't articles arguing that the CIA/Mafia/Mossad alliance killed JFK, or the Trade Center was brought down by remote-controlled jetliners, in addition to the crackpot Nazis.
> 
> How in the hell can anybody take seriously authors who publish this kind of madness?



But, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." So as long as people are spreading these types of lies where we can see them, we need to stand up and point out all the problems with the story. Otherwise, a lie repeated often enough without challenge will be accepted as fact.


----------



## Doc_Jude

I'm not going to debate 9/11. Both sides seem to have been debated ad nauseum. I will say this, however...

The most amazing tricks have been pulled off by magicians and illusionists throughout history. One of the most famous works of illusion used by a military was the Trojan Horse, a symbol of victory that actually spelled defeat for the seeming victors. 

Any illusionist worth his salt will tell you that there are many factors that contribute to quality illusions, but two of the most important factors are knowing how to work the gaff or pass right in front of the mark's eyes (usually through misdirection or the use of a stooge/stick), and _*the marks' desire to believe.*_

Keeping that in mind, more often than not, I largely ignore the news headlines but I pay attention to the seemingly small goings-on. *Anyone that's had close-up magic performed on them knows that the tricks where a illusionist manipulates something that the mark is holding in their own hand or retaining on their person are the most amazing*. The one thing that most marks don't consider is that most, if not all, of these tricks have been used in criminal enterprises all over the world.

So, IGNORE THE PRESTIGE!!! What do you value, as a human & a citizen of your respective country, and have those things been manipulated or outright taken away? & most important, how do you react to the theft of such things? Does your "belief" allow you to simply accept things that you otherwise wouldn't stand for, even for a second? 

Don't buy the Trojan Horse. We can't afford it.


----------



## Mr. E

Doc_Jude said:


> I'm not going to debate 9/11.



Then you are in kind of the wrong place, aren't you. :wink1:

Nothing of what you write is really new. You only have to look at how soon after some shooting tragedy for handgun control groups to start a new drive to ban guns to understand that there are people who will take advantage of a tragedy. But that is far from even thinking that one of these groups would engineer a campus shooting to push that drive. That level of evil is worlds beyond merely taking advantage.

And yes, I don't trust the government to always be in my best interest. Have you noticed how none of the opposition canidates for president seem to be taking a public stand on throwing out the Patriot Act? Considering just how often politicians make promises and throw them out the day after election day, the lack of rallying against the PA is telling. And if you want to really convince a republican that taking away rights is a bad thing, ask them what they think Hillary would do with it considering the problems we saw with her as co-president.

But to think that someone would engineer this just so that they could justify tighter control on the population- I require a bit more proof before I would accept that. Any proof would be nice. Not speculation, not possibilities and not something that can't be checked out. Good, solid facts.


----------



## Doc_Jude

Penn & Teller with John Cleese...





Does anyone else think that this work resembles the current administration's War on Terror? Just pretend that John's card is a justification for the war... & *we are Teller*.

Jokes on you, Teller.


----------



## Mr. E

It is a bit of a stretch to make that sort of analogy in this thread. Unless you really want to say that the conspiracy theorists are right and the Government really was behind the attacks. Do you think so? I really would like to hear it and debate it with you if that is the case.

But there was an interesting related video by Penn and Teller listed that does seem to relate to the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=

or did I already post that?


----------



## Doc_Jude

Mr. E said:


> Then you are in kind of the wrong place, aren't you. :wink1:
> 
> Nothing of what you write is really new.



Cool. Thanks for taking my first line completely out of context 



Mr. E said:


> ... But to think that someone would engineer this just so that they could justify tighter control on the population- I require a bit more proof before I would accept that. Any proof would be nice. Not speculation, not possibilities and not something that can't be checked out. Good, solid facts.



I'm waiting for "good, solid facts" to support *EITHER* side of this argument.


----------



## Doc_Jude

Mr. E said:


> It is a bit of a stretch to make that sort of analogy in this thread. Unless you really want to say that the conspiracy theorists are right and the Government really was behind the attacks. Do you think so? I really would like to hear it and debate it with you if that is the case.



I don't care to debate this subject with anyone. No one here has first hand knowledge of the subject matter, but only what they've read, or seen & heard on television. I'm more concerned with those that would propose a solution for the "problem" and who said solution would benefit most. I don't see how the American people are benefiting from this "war" in Iraq. I also don't see how the Iraqi people are benefiting, with their shiny new democracy while still lacking reliable water or electrical utility service. Who is this "solution" benefiting?


----------



## Doc_Jude

> Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...



Why? Because the U.S. Gov't won't provide undeniable evidence to the contrary, apparently to preserve "national security".


----------



## Blotan Hunka

If you dont care to debate, then why are you here?

If people want to argue that the hijackers were "intelligence assets" of some agency, perhaps thats possible (getting people to kill themselves would take some doing). Its when they start getting into the WTC was set up for demo is where I draw the "wingnut" line. Anybody with one iota of experience/knowledge of demolitions knows the ammount of equipment, manpower and risk involved in prepping an active building covertly. Its as close to impossible as you can get.

It would be easier to put rockets on an asteroid and remote control it into the WTC than it would be to wire them up for demo under the noses of thousands without being caught.


----------



## OUMoose

Blotan Hunka said:


> If people want to argue that the hijackers were "intelligence assets" of some agency, perhaps thats possible (getting people to kill themselves would take some doing). Its when they start getting into the WTC was set up for demo is where I draw the "wingnut" line. Anybody with one iota of experience/knowledge of demolitions knows the ammount of equipment, manpower and risk involved in prepping an active building covertly. Its as close to impossible as you can get.
> 
> It would be easier to put rockets on an asteroid and remote control it into the WTC than it would be to wire them up for demo under the noses of thousands without being caught.


/humor on

Don't give them any ideas dangit!!!  *looks toward the sky with a wary eye*

As far as "intelligence assets", I'm going to go with MKULTRA for $500, Alex.  

/humor off


----------



## Doc_Jude

Blotan Hunka said:


> If you dont care to debate, then why are you here?



I guess that you missed my first couple posts. No worries.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> If you dont care to debate, then why are you here?
> 
> If people want to argue that the hijackers were "intelligence assets" of some agency, perhaps thats possible (getting people to kill themselves would take some doing). Its when they start getting into the WTC was set up for demo is where I draw the "wingnut" line. Anybody with one iota of experience/knowledge of demolitions knows the ammount of equipment, manpower and risk involved in prepping an active building covertly. Its as close to impossible as you can get.
> 
> It would be easier to put rockets on an asteroid and remote control it into the WTC than it would be to wire them up for demo under the noses of thousands without being caught.


 
I tend to agree with this sentiment.  As confused as I am with the issue, I find the whole thing stretches the limit of plausibility.  And when certain people started saying that Tesla Weapons from Space were responsible, that pretty much set off my "crazy" alarms.  

And that ain't easy...

All I can say is that there is a lot that I don't understand and that I would like to understand.  As time has gone on and I've had time to think, I don't have enough info to throw my eggs in any baskets.


----------



## Makalakumu

OUMoose said:


> As far as "intelligence assets", I'm going to go with MKULTRA for $500...


 
Zacharias Moussoui???


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E said:


> Any proof would be nice. Not speculation, not possibilities and not something that can't be checked out. Good, solid facts.


 
This is something I am very interested in and if we can discuss it in a polite manner, I would very much appreciate it.  What would you consider to be "facts" and "proof"?  What would it take for you to even consider this as a possibility?  Please note, I am not asking you to accept certain theories as truth, I'm just wondering what would really make you consider that this *may* have happened?


----------



## Doc_Jude

[yt]f7ixuf236Dk[/yt]


----------



## Doc_Jude

Why won't the 9-11 conspiracies go away?

[yt]fDkLoN-DZZA[/yt]

[yt]ISW9sXP_Sik[/yt]

The official story is too full of holes. That's why. They make claims but when asked for evidence, they either holler "National Security!" or "Traitor" or "Democrat Liberal Nut Case".

But we're expected to believe that a 250,000lb aircraft with a wingspan of 125' with a fuel payload of approx. 7,500 gallons of JP5... 












hit the Pentagon and did this:






which turned into this:








BTW, *THIS* is what it looks like when a airliner hits a building...


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> What would you consider to be "facts" and "proof"?  What would it take for you to even consider this as a possibility?



I do not see any difficulty in the idea of "proof" or "facts."

Proof *is not* speculation or accusation. Proof *is not* polls or a popularity contest. Proof *is not* something that can't be passed onto someone else or examined by others.

Blotan Hunka just explained why no one in engineering seems to think that anyone could rig the WTC with bombs and not be discovered. And there are videos of Bin Laden talking about the hijackers and taking credit in the eyes of Muslims for it and as Carol Kaur pointed out in another thread, no one is stepping forward to say "We didn't release that!"

So it seems logical to act as if Bin Laden was the cause of the 9-11 attacks without the government involved in any way and it is up to those that accuse the government to prove their case. Not the other way around.

Think about how you would go about convincing me that America did not land men on the moon if you want the sort of thing that would make me think differently about 9-11.

In both cases, pulling off such a huge, detailed plot in secret would be so difficult it is beyond what anyone else seems to have pulled off. And keeping it secret for decades would be even harder. And the consequences of a mistake or discovery would destroy everything that the plotters worked for, maybe even the collapse of the American civilization as we know it. So it is very far- fetched and requires solid proof.

So if there is something that *may* be one way, they you have to think that it *may not* be that way and throw it out as any sort of proof or facts.

As an example, Doc Jude just posted a lot of stuff. I looked on the first clip and saw that the crux seemed to be that a hijacker's passport _just couldn't_ have survived the crash and this is offered as "proof" that it was a plant. But take a look at the following link.

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

So much for that idea. If there is a possibility that it may not be as the conspiracy theorists say, then I am not buying it. Answers to the rest of Doc Jude's postings probably can be found at the same site if you want to look.

I have never even seen a rocket launch. And none of us here have been to the Moon. But the vast number of voices that I trust have said that there were men on the Moon and I trust it because I or anyone else could find out facts if we really wanted to. And I demand that same sort of thing for 9-11 as well.

Proof is something that can be shared and discovered by others. And the bigger the story, the more likely sources other than some neo-nazi with a web site will pick it up. The press does make mistakes, and they run retractions from time to time. But if there was a big story then other sources with reasonable trust would pick it up and do their own verifications all over the world.

As an example, if The Financial Times of London reported that an observatory with a huge telescope they hired to get shots of the moon landing sites could not find anything where they were supposed to be, I would take notice. I would then expect that The New York Times, Al- Jeezra and the Pretoria Times would also go to local astonomers and run stories saying that there way no remains where the landing sites on the Moon were supposed to be. And then you might convince me that there was something to the moon landing conspiracies. But some site that claims there is no proof of the sites would not convince me, even if they posted photos they said were of the areas.

And if someone gets cute with how they present the facts and what they leave out, then I am going to call them on it and brand them for what they are. There are neo-nazis out there, and crazy people out there, and they have access to the internet. So it should not be surprised that these hate-mongers would drop facts, exaggerate and outright lie about things on their web sites to push the idea that the world is run by jews or some sort of cabel. If someone takes something that started on an anti-semetic site and tries to offer it up as "proof" then they are either sympathetic to such evil or they are too _damn stupid_ to bother to check their facts and use some critical thinking before helping to spread the hate. And I am going to look at them like the stupid, evil people they are.

I have seen people link to newspaper sites that talk about conspiracy theorists and give some quotes by them as to why they think the way they do. The way things are presented is as if the newspaper were interviewing them as part of an investigation into the conspiracy rather than the freak show it was intended. When I see that sort of thing, I treat the person as if they were deceptive and will continue to try to fool others. If someone gets several of their 'facts' shot down and yet still tries to continue on with trying to convince others I know that they are not interested in the truth and will treat them as such. I will never take their word for anything, even if I were to take anyone's word on something like this instead of proof.

That is pretty much what I demand to make me give anymore than a few seconds to suspect that OBL did not commit 9-11. Just think of the type of thing that would convince me that America did not land on the Moon and you will see what type of things I will accept and why I laugh at anything else.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

The Pentagon is made of vastly different material from the WTC. The ballistics of the impact were different too. The "hole shape" thing is a non-issue IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E said:


> That is pretty much what I demand to make me give anymore than a few seconds to suspect that OBL did not commit 9-11. Just think of the type of thing that would convince me that America did not land on the Moon and you will see what type of things I will accept and why I laugh at anything else.


 
I believe we went to the moon, BTW.  But, lets just say that another country, like France or China sends a sattalite to the moon to map it in detail.  And they do not find any evidence of moon landers, flags, foot prints, etc.  Would you consider that to be evidence that everyone could accept?

I like your post, FWIW, but I want to try and pull out some concrete examples of things that would cause you to reconsider what happened on 9/11.  I'm very curious to hear this from people who are furiously skeptical of this issue.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> The Pentagon is made of vastly different material from the WTC. The ballistics of the impact were different too. The "hole shape" thing is a non-issue IMO.


 
It sure is made of different stuff, so it definitely can be expected to act differently when struck.  Here's what I want to know though...

How does that matter?  

I truly don't understand how the wings of this plane seemingly violate the laws of conservation of momentum and get sucked into hole with the rest of the plane.

I've spoken to engineers and other physicists about this and the best explanation I've recieved is that "weird" things happen at those speeds.  

What is "weird" and what is impossible?


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> I truly don't understand how the wings of this plane seemingly violate the laws of conservation of momentum and get sucked into hole with the rest of the plane.



Who said they did?

Read this for a start.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

Then this,

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Pay attention to this part.



> The Missing Wings and Tail
> 
> This argument, based on features 1, 2, and 3, holds that since the outer expanses of the wings and most of the vertical tail section of a 757 could not have fit through the facade's impact punctures, they should have been visible in the post-crash photographs of the building's exterior.
> 
> The argument makes the error of assuming that large pieces of the wings and tail should have remained intact. A crash study suggests that the over-300-mph impact of a jetliner with the Pentagon's heavy masonry facade would have reduced the entire aircraft -- and certainly its relatively light wings and tail -- to confetti.
> 
> Another error in this argument is its implicit assumption that the photographs of the Pentagon's lawn show it to be debris-free. In fact, the photographs have pronounced foreshortening of regions near the building, which, together with variations in the terrain, may hide significant debris fields.



If you want more specifics about there really was a lot of debris, check out the following link.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

So yeah, it looks like the bulk of the aircraft went into the building, but maybe the wings got sheared off and were left on the lawn outside. You can see the photos of the debris for yourself. If the entire plane got "sucked in" as you are trying to say, why is there debris in the pictures?

Really, do your homework. It took a quick search on the internet to find these sites that shoot down what your hint that there really was no plane that hit the Pentagon. It would be easier if you checked before you posted things like the wings having to get sucked into the Pentagon as if it were fact. You may also note that the sites I linked to thinks there was a conspiracy by the government and they still say that there was a plane that hit the Pentagon. They think people that throw out theories like yours are trojan horses trying to discredit real research. If even they say that there is no real evidence to doubt the Pentagon attack as the story goes, where does that leave you?

Here is another source, but one that some people just refuse to listen to due to their conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6



> Big Plane, Small Holes
> Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
> 
> The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile &#8212; part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
> 
> 
> FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
> 
> Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."



Remember what I said? 



> if there is something that *may* be one way, they you have to think that it *may not* be that way and throw it out as any sort of proof or facts



And let us be  honest, how stupid would a conspiracy planner have to be to try to fake a plane hitting the Pentagon without a real aircraft considering all the roads and people around it? There were people that saw the plane go in. I know you have had this pointed out to you and you tried to argue that maybe the witnesses were led to believe something they did not. The same goes for you trying to argue at first that there was no debris. Anyone else that clicks on that related thread at the bottom of this can see you go through that. So maybe you should do some reading and critical thinking before you toss things like this.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

What I believe is that there is a HUGE difference between mathematical "impossibilities" and the actual crash. How many actual plane/building crashes is that "fact" based on? If there were studies of "X" number of actual airplane crashes into buildings and they showed it was impossible for the wings to wind up inside, that I may believe. What I dont swallow is a bunch of internet conspiracy nuts yammering about "impossible physics". Like Mr. E previously stated, the "facts" they are presenting lack credibility.What you find is that when things actually happen for the first time that they dont always go as an equation says they should. And as Mr E has stated. Who says there was no debris outside? It would be FAR easier for a gvt. agency to plant a hijacker on a plane and fly it into a building than it would be to strike a bldg. with a missile in broad daylight, in a populated place and THEN disguise it as a plane after the fact.

Why, instead of trying to take the easiest explination (gvt. hijackers) and prove that, do the wingnuts need to make all kinds of half-assed CSI investigations into physics, demolitions and crash scene investigations? I think its because its easier to feed their conspiracy obsession doing that then it is to try to prove that the hijackers were hired/cultivated assets. Its also not as much fun and you cant obsess over photographs and physics and videos as easily with humans as you can over "nuts and bolts".

While the conspiracy theory wingnuts like to say we just dont want to believe the gvt. would do this. I believe that they not only want, they somehow NEED to believe that the gvt. DID do it. Its some part of their personality and belief structure. While THEY may say I am trying to avoid the "truth" by closing my eyes to their "evidence". I say that THEY, deep down inside know that they are "wingnuts" but assuage that with the balm of being "open minded". Their minds are so "open" that their brains have fallen out and every nutty idea out there has been sucked in (minus the wings) by the vaccum.


----------



## TimoS

Blotan Hunka said:


> Why, instead of trying to take the easiest explination (gvt. hijackers) and prove that, do the wingnuts need to make all kinds of half-assed CSI investigations into physics, demolitions and crash scene investigations?


I think there are (at least) two reasons: first, with complex explanations some conspiracy theorists appear to have thought the scenario through really thoroughly, so it gives them credibility in the eyes of other likeminded people and also, and more importantly, in the eyes of the general public who is not so well versed in science


----------



## Doc_Jude

Blotan Hunka said:


> While the conspiracy theory wingnuts like to say we just dont want to believe the gvt. would do this. I believe that they not only want, they somehow NEED to believe that the gvt. DID do it. Its some part of their personality and belief structure. While THEY may say I am trying to avoid the "truth" by closing my eyes to their "evidence". I say that THEY, deep down inside know that they are "wingnuts" but assuage that with the balm of being "open minded". Their minds are so "open" that their brains have fallen out and every nutty idea out there has been sucked in (minus the wings) by the vaccum.



Insulting the intelligence of those that don't swallow the gov't story hook, line, & sinker, with a smile on their face, certainly doesn't help your argument. Are you happy that there were no WMDs? Do you agree that getting Saddam out was justification (& the true reason) for invading Iraq and the mess now is worth it all? 

I don't believe in UFOs, spoon bending, psychic healers, or any of the fringe crap. But when the government lies to the people, then anything they say SHOULD be questioned. Expert testimony means little, since you can get an "expert" to say whatever you need them to say, you just need to shop around long enough to find an expert that you agree with.

I asked my father, a retired Seattle fireman/arson investigator/building inspector/insurance investigator, & a man whose opinion I value above most others about 9/111. When I showed him the videos of 9/11, the planes hitting and the buildings falling (which, for some reason, he'd avoided watching, he's a very patriotic Vietnam vet) and he pointed out the very same things that the "wingnut" Loose Change guys pointed out. 

"What are those puffs coming out of the building on the lower floors?" 

"There's no way that it would 'fold' that straight and that fast without the supports below being weakened & moved out of the way."

"If those floors weren't weakened, the building would have just fallen to one side. The steel structure beneath the impact point isn't weakened enough by the fire above, or the impact, to make the whole building fall straight down. They've been holding that structure up for years, why would they suddenly fail now? It fell too fast. Someone demolished those buildings. I don't know who, but someone did."

Then I told him that WTC 7 fell from "fire". He just watched it once, said "Bull----", & went to get another beer.

He had completely different things to say about the Pentagon. He's the one that showed me how to do the math on how much fuel would have been on the plane & he just asked me "Do you think that 7,500 gallons of JP5 going off would cause that little damage? & if the wings or tail were torn off before, you would have seen a HUGE fireball somewhere, and obvious evidence."
My dad is most definitely NOT A "WING NUT". He doesn't buy the government story of 9/11 at all. He did the final inspection on Seattle's  Columbia Center before anyone was allowed to move in:




I asked him if a plane hit in the top in the top 1/4 or even 1/3 of that building, would it just fall straight down on itself, forget falling as fast as BOTH of the WTC towers. He said "Oh, no. No way."
& when I showed him the NYC firemen saying that while they were downstairs they heard what could have only been demo going off, & saw evidence of demo going off, he said,"Firemen in a major city have to be on-sight whenever they demolish a building. If they say it was demo, then it was. Everything they said they saw would have meant 'demo' to me if I was there. Once you've seen, heard, & smelled the evidence of demo, you know it when you see it."
Of course, some would like to just disregard the interviews with the NYC firemen as "not expert". I'm not one of them. Some would like to disregard the opinion of my father, since they don't know him. I'm not one of them. 
This is why I'm not interested in debate. To me, there is no debate. The gov't story is BS. I don't buy all the conspiracy theory crap, I just want to know what *REALLY* happened, & I want the people who are *REALLY* responsible to be found and I want them to pay, not just with their lives but with their souls.

'Nuff said.


----------



## Mr. E

Doc_Jude said:


> & when I showed him the NYC firemen saying that while they were downstairs they heard what could have only been demo going off, & saw evidence of demo going off, he said,"Firemen in a major city have to be on-sight whenever they demolish a building. If they say it was demo, then it was. Everything they said they saw would have meant 'demo' to me if I was there. Once you've seen, heard, & smelled the evidence of demo, you know it when you see it."
> Of course, some would like to just disregard the interviews with the NYC firemen as "not expert". I'm not one of them. Some would like to disregard the opinion of my father, since they don't know him. I'm not one of them.
> This is why I'm not interested in debate. To me, there is no debate. The gov't story is BS.



First of all, why should we trust someone who says that their father said something? And why should we give credence to someone who was never even at the WTC at any point? But you would like to build your side up as some sort of expert.

Second, take a look at the following.

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

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

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

Oh, so it looks like they really were not saying that they saw demolitions in the building. You heard what you wanted to hear and changed things from "it sounded like a bomb going off" to "we heard bombs going off" and reported it to your father. He took that and expanded on it as well. This is how these things get started. If you take the time to get to the facts and examine the other side, you find out that things are not only what you think. So, considering just how I was easily able to give another side to the story of your account, don't you think that maybe you should open up your mind a bit more?


----------



## Blotan Hunka

What you REALLY want/need is someone to "prove" the WTC was a demo job. Otherwise why regurgitate all the same disproven internet pap about "smoke puffs" etc?

There is no way that the WTC was "wired up" for demo. I have a grunts experience with demo and its not like a Bourne movie. You dont just go around slapping little packages of C4 and little black boxes w/ red lights on them on every available I beam.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."
> 
> http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf


 

Re-read. Ill take the word of demo experts over an arson investigator, since the WTC wasnt an arson.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Blotan Hunka said:


>


:erg:


----------



## Mr. E

Blotan Hunka said:


> What you REALLY want/need is someone to "prove" the WTC was a demo job. Otherwise why regurgitate all the same disproven internet pap about "smoke puffs" etc?
> 
> There is no way that the WTC was "wired up" for demo. I have a grunts experience with demo and its not like a Bourne movie. You dont just go around slapping little packages of C4 and little black boxes w/ red lights on them on every available I beam.



Good points.

Here is the idea that really makes me giggle....

Think about this for a second.... You are a guy planning a very precise chain of explosions to bring down a building without anyone finding them. This is probably a very delicate thing for you. You can't risk things going wrong and the explosives not going off, or being discovered. If something is found, everything you have worked for will collapse.

So, considering that.... you then arrange for a plane to hit both of the buildings you are going to blow up. There is a raging fire and tons of people streaming in and out of the buildings to fight it.

Now that is silly. Just the idea of a fire being in the building that you are going to blow would cause a lot of trouble for things going off as planned. Having an airplane hit and leak jet fuel would be a nightmare for anyone hoping that things would go off as planned. How would you know that they would not knock something off and things would not go boom? Or maybe something like a block of C-4 would be blown out of the building and picked up by one of the many people milling around? Why would you bet that someone like a firefighter would not see and photograph your hastily- placed charges?

Pulling off an explosion is difficult under the best circumstances. Things go wrong sometimes and you have to deal with stuff that did not go off. And that is when you take time and have the ability to work out in the open. If you are trying to keep things secret, and are rushed and you have planes hitting the building and fires breaking out you would have to be some sort of super human to be  sure that things would go as planned and not fizzle out somehow.


----------



## Doc_Jude

Mr. E said:


> First of all, why should we trust someone who says that their father said something? And why should we give credence to someone who was never even at the WTC at any point? But you would like to build your side up as some sort of expert.
> 
> Second, take a look at the following.
> 
> http://www.911myths.com/html/bomb_in_the_building.html
> 
> http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
> 
> http://www.911myths.com/html/bombs___not_literally.html
> 
> Oh, so it looks like they really were not saying that they saw demolitions in the building. You heard what you wanted to hear and changed things from "it sounded like a bomb going off" to "we heard bombs going off" and reported it to your father. He took that and expanded on it as well. This is how these things get started. If you take the time to get to the facts and examine the other side, you find out that things are not only what you think. So, considering just how I was easily able to give another side to the story of your account, don't you think that maybe you should open up your mind a bit more?



We obviously haven't seen the same interviews of NYC firemen, they heard and smelled the explosives, and saw the effects in the lobbies and the subbasements. & I am no expert, but I trust my father over you. 
* AND THAT IS WHY I'M NOT INTERESTED IN DEBATING 9/11 HERE.* As I said before. I won't be contributing again. You believe what you like. I'll do the same. 
I love the disgustingly impersonal medium that is the Internet.


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E, if you read the official account, in the 9/11 comission report, it says that most of the debris ended up inside the building.  There is a thread on MT that discusses this.  

One of the things that I think that you and BH really need to think about is your own biases.  I understand and applaud your level of skepticism and incredulity, but I feel that the personal nature that many of your comments strike is indicative of strong bias.

The problem this can have is the same thing that happens to many conspiracy theorists.  They pick and choose peices of information that make that bias a self fulfilling prophacy.  And that is one of the major problems that I have with many of the links that you are posting.  Those websites have a clear bias and they aren't dealing with all of the information...only the stuff that shows what they want.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't read what is being posted.  On the contrary, I think they do make some good points.  On the other hand there are some unanswered questions that the "wingnuts" raise that I feel have merit also.  

The conclusions one draws from this may not be the ones that the writers intended, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, Mr. E, don't assume that I haven't done my homework on this.  I think you'd be surprised to find out exactly how much time I've spent reading information on both sides.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Mr. E said:


> Good points.
> 
> Here is the idea that really makes me giggle....
> 
> Think about this for a second.... You are a guy planning a very precise chain of explosions to bring down a building without anyone finding them. This is probably a very delicate thing for you. You can't risk things going wrong and the explosives not going off, or being discovered. If something is found, everything you have worked for will collapse.
> 
> So, considering that.... you then arrange for a plane to hit both of the buildings you are going to blow up. There is a raging fire and tons of people streaming in and out of the buildings to fight it.
> 
> Now that is silly. Just the idea of a fire being in the building that you are going to blow would cause a lot of trouble for things going off as planned. Having an airplane hit and leak jet fuel would be a nightmare for anyone hoping that things would go off as planned. How would you know that they would not knock something off and things would not go boom? Or maybe something like a block of C-4 would be blown out of the building and picked up by one of the many people milling around? Why would you bet that someone like a firefighter would not see and photograph your hastily- placed charges?
> 
> Pulling off an explosion is difficult under the best circumstances. Things go wrong sometimes and you have to deal with stuff that did not go off. And that is when you take time and have the ability to work out in the open. If you are trying to keep things secret, and are rushed and you have planes hitting the building and fires breaking out you would have to be some sort of super human to be sure that things would go as planned and not fizzle out somehow.


 
Not to mention that bringing down a building in a percise manner requires removing and or cutting improtant structural members before explosives even enter into the mix. The types of charge and the wiring and timing of detonation must be precise. This is a huge undertaking. Were not talking about spooks with briefcases and hollywood C4 blocks with fancy digital timers....why do covert bombs always have number timers on them anyway? Nobody ever sees them....but I digress.

Like I said earlier. Ill take the word of professional demolitions experts over internet wingnuts. Its not my problem that some nutters wont accept that planes flying into buildings are FAR more plausible for the WTC collapse than a controled demo (covert at that) will EVER be. Its obvious that no professional explination of the collapse will ever satisfy the wingnuts. All the engineers and sources that support the plane/building theory are gvt. hacks who are "in" on the conspiracy. There is no winning with the wingnuts short of folding your own tin-foil hat. Because my mind isnt open enough to let the little CIA ninja demolition experts in...well I guess Ill just have to live with that.

Like ive said before, the problem with the wingnut theories is that they are dependent on this "controlled demo", missile into the Pentagon, stuff. If some HUMINT evidence of contacts between Atta and his crew and some US intel agencies were to come to light, I MAY begin to wonder a bit. But that scenario is still plane/building.

I guess that makes me a gvt stooge whos job it is is to stifle the "true believers" on the internet. I hope that big payment made the swiss bank account. Now its off to fight the moon landing wingnuts.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> Not to mention that bringing down a building in a percise manner requires removing and or cutting improtant structural members before explosives even enter into the mix. The types of charge and the wiring and timing of detonation must be precise. This is a huge undertaking. Were not talking about spooks with briefcases and hollywood C4 blocks with fancy digital timers....why do covert bombs always have number timers on them anyway? Nobody ever sees them....but I digress.
> 
> Like I said earlier. Ill take the word of professional demolitions experts over internet wingnuts. Its not my problem that some nutters wont accept that planes flying into buildings are FAR more plausible for the WTC collapse than a controled demo (covert at that) will EVER be. Its obvious that no professional explination of the collapse will ever satisfy the wingnuts. All the engineers and sources that support the plane/building theory are gvt. hacks who are "in" on the conspiracy. There is no winning with the wingnuts short of folding your own tin-foil hat. Because my mind isnt open enough to let the little CIA ninja demolition experts in...well I guess Ill just have to live with that.
> 
> Like ive said before, the problem with the wingnut theories is that they are dependent on this "controlled demo", missile into the Pentagon, stuff. If some HUMINT evidence of contacts between Atta and his crew and some US intel agencies were to come to light, I MAY begin to wonder a bit. But that scenario is still plane/building.
> 
> I guess that makes me a gvt stooge whos job it is is to stifle the "true believers" on the internet. I hope that big payment made the swiss bank account. Now its off to fight the moon landing wingnuts.


 
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, BH.  I don't think I'd even give this a second thought if it weren't for organizations like this...

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

These really are people with credentials and opinions that deserve consideration IMO.  It doesn't mean that they are right, but I think we should read what they have to say...


----------



## Doc_Jude

Forgot something...


Doc_Jude said:


> I asked my father, a retired Seattle fireman/arson investigator/building inspector/insurance investigator/*& LEADING HAZMAT SPECIALIST FOR SFD & KING COUNTY*, & a man whose opinion I value above most others about 9/11...


----------



## Mr. E

Doc_Jude said:


> We obviously haven't seen the same interviews of NYC firemen, they heard and smelled the explosives, and saw the effects in the lobbies and the subbasements.



Possibly because those interviews never existed? You would think that those interviews would be all over youtube and the conspiracy sites if they were really as you say you remember them.

Here is something you might want to read over.

http://debunking911.com/quotes.htm

Seriously, 300 plus firefighters died on 9-11. If there were survivors that really thought it was because of explosives set by someone, don't you think they would be raising hell through their union or otherwise?

And before you try to say that they were shut up, read the link. It deals with that and probably any other excuse you can come up with.


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> One of the things that I think that you and BH really need to think about is your own biases.



This coming from a guy who has started several threads here trying to push the idea that there was a government conspiracy.

You should follow your own advice. And maybe talk it over with a proffesional mental health specialist.

After all, after spending all the time you have trying to convince people here that you have done a lot of research and know more than the typical sheep out there, what kind of blow would it be to admit you were wrong, you were not as smart as you thought and you wasted a lot of time?

As for me, I remain a sceptic and demand proof. I prefer simpler plots to more complicated ones. I know that they are more likely to succeed without discovery. 

And I really have to wonder why all these conspiracy theorists can't seem to be taken seriously by any respectable media. They have to set up web sites. I looked into the background of a few and always found that they are not as qualified as they try to present themselves. Scholars for 9-11 Truth comes to mind. :uhyeah:

If there was something, I would expect that sources like _El Pais, The Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde_ and _The New York Times_ would be picking up the story and not some web site. They can't all be under the thumbs of the neocons.

I have seen a lot of stuff so far and none of it stands up to my standard of proof. I am not going to lower my standards, so others are going to have to try to provide _real_ proof instead of appealing to me to open my mind or trying to say their authority should be respected. No proof, no go.


----------



## Big Don

Is Popular Mechanics a puppet of the government? Is that why they debunked all the conspiracy theory BS?


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E said:


> You should follow your own advice. And maybe talk it over with a proffesional mental health specialist.
> 
> After all, after spending all the time you have trying to convince people here that you have done a lot of research and know more than the typical sheep out there, what kind of blow would it be to admit you were wrong, you were not as smart as you thought and you wasted a lot of time?


 
This sort of rhetoric is not very polite and it doesn't advance the discourse I attempted to make with you in good faith.



> I have seen a lot of stuff so far and none of it stands up to my standard of proof. I am not going to lower my standards, so others are going to have to try to provide _real_ proof instead of appealing to me to open my mind or trying to say their authority should be respected. No proof, no go.


 
Well, I asked before and recieved a fairly diffuse answer, so I shall ask again.  What, exactly, would qualify as proof for you?  What specifically would cause you to reconsider?  BH gave a couple of concrete examples and he pretty much said that he absolutely rules out any scenario that doesn't include planes crashing into buildings as they ultimate causative factor.  Fair enough.  Now, I know exactly where he stands.

Where do you stand?  What, specifically, would cause you to reconsider?  What would you rule out completely?


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> This sort of rhetoric is not very polite and it doesn't advance the discourse I attempted to make with you in good faith.



My response to you was also in good faith, perhaps more than yours.

It seems natural and polite to check with yourself before you ask others to do the same. If you want to say that others should check their biases, then as a person who has started several threads here promoting the idea that there is vast conspiracy, you should follow your own advice. You brought up the idea before me. But you have the greater history of trying to promote your theories than I.

And I already gave an example of what I consider proof and you responded to it. It is not diffuse as far as I can see. Go ahead and read post # 191 again as well as your next post after it. Now you seem to be trying to say that I have not given you an idea of what I demand to amend my beliefs. Do I really have to repeat myself? I already do not think that you are posting here in good faith, but rather a desire to push your beliefs in any way that might be accepted. Do you really want me to give concrete examples of why I think this based on your past posting history- or are you going to again talk about how I am not being polite by pointing out the truth?

I want something that can't be shot down or have a reasonable explanation. If something may be one way or the other, I will accept the one that matches what Osama Bin Laden is saying in his videos- that he did 9-11 to attack the US. If you want to convince me, think of the type of proof that might convince me that the Moon landings were faked. Are we talking the Daily Mirror of London, or some web site? Because considering all the effort all the web sites that promote the conspiracy put into convincing others, I can't seriously consider that they would not try to get a legitimate source like The New Zealand Herald to pick up their story. The only reasonable thing I can think of is that their levels of "proof" do not make the cut with any source that has to worry about its reputation.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

What I have discovered about the so called "experts" who buy the wingnut theory is that the majority of them are "experts" in every field except structural engineering and demolitions. Because someone has a degree in astro physics, english lit or elecrtical engineering doesnt mean they have any clout on how the WTC could have been wired up.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1230517.html



> Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.
> 
> Fortunately, facts can be checked. For our special report, PM compiled a list of the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists, assertions that are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. These claims all involve fields that are part of PM's core expertise--structural engineering, aviation, military technology and science.


 


> We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.
> 
> Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.


 
Popular Mechanics gathered over 300 experts actually in the fields pertaining to the subject. Why does a handful of wingnuts superceed them? Would you buy their story if the roles were reversed and all the Popular Mechanics argued the conspiracy theory? I think not. Its part of the Conspiracy Theorist psychosis. If a handful of people disagree with the majority, there has to have been a cover-up. There will ALWAYS be a handful of dissenters on any subject. Why are some seen as important while others are discounted? Because they support your already held belief. The American Society of Civil Engineers doesnt buy the demo explination fer Crissakes. But because some obscure professor of Astro Physics dissents, they are dismissed as "government stooges".

If this were about global warming and a small group of "experts" dissented with the consensus. It would be a 180 from this topic, thats for shure


----------



## Blotan Hunka

The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".

From the Time article that started this thread:



> There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.


----------



## TimoS

Blotan Hunka said:


> The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".



Really? Christ, sometimes I really don't know whether to laugh or cry and hearing that from someone would surely qualify as such a moment


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".


 
It's things like these that make me really think that I may need to retract any doubt that I may have...


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> What I have discovered about the so called "experts" who buy the wingnut theory is that the majority of them are "experts" in every field except structural engineering and demolitions.


 
That isn't entirely true now.  One of the links I posted a while back was an organization of architects and structural engineers who were formulating aruments against the official story.


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E said:


> It seems natural and polite to check with yourself before you ask others to do the same. If you want to say that others should check their biases, then as a person who has started several threads here promoting the idea that there is vast conspiracy, you should follow your own advice. You brought up the idea before me. But you have the greater history of trying to promote your theories than I.


 
Who says that I haven't contemplated my own biases?  I look at them all of the time.

And since when does asking questions, discussing ideas and arguing their merits qualify as "pushing" one's theories?



> And I already gave an example of what I consider proof and you responded to it. It is not diffuse as far as I can see. Go ahead and read post # 191 again as well as your next post after it.


 
I believe that my next post politely asked if you would provide some specific concrete examples of things that would cause you to reconsider.  My comment that your post was diffuse was because you left it up to me to imagine what you think.  I wanted to hear what *you* think, specifically.



> Now you seem to be trying to say that I have not given you an idea of what I demand to amend my beliefs. Do I really have to repeat myself? I already do not think that you are posting here in good faith, but rather a desire to push your beliefs in any way that might be accepted. *Do you really want me to give concrete examples of why I think this* based on your past posting history- or are you going to again talk about how I am not being polite by pointing out the truth?


 
I think you need to get off the anonymous power trip.  There's no need to toss out threats in a simple discussion.  This sort of behavior is possibly a violation of MT policy.    



> If you want to convince me, think of the type of proof that might convince me that the Moon landings were faked.


 
I'm not going to imagine what you think.  Please give some concrete examples.  Despite the abuse, I am still morbidly curious as to what you think.  I'm really trying to understand where you and other people are coming from.


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> That isn't entirely true now.  One of the links I posted a while back was an organization of architects and structural engineers who were formulating aruments against the official story.



Are you certain of the qualifications of these people? I have read your posts about the scholars for 9-11 truth. You took the stance that those guys were beyond question at first and that others should defer to their greater knowledge. Then it turns out that their qualifications were pretty much worthless and the engineering department of the university of the lead guy said his stuff was full of holes.

Now you seem to have just swallowed the line of another group like this.


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E said:


> Are you certain of the qualifications of these people? I have read your posts about the scholars for 9-11 truth. You took the stance that those guys were beyond question at first and that others should defer to their greater knowledge. Then it turns out that their qualifications were pretty much worthless and the engineering department of the university of the lead guy said his stuff was full of holes.


 
I'm just as blind as you.  All I can see is what they post about themselves.

See this link...

http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php


----------



## tshadowchaser

> The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".


 
Thhis one is so stupid it dose not really need to be considered.  I had a friend that was driving in from N.J. that saw the 2nd plan hit  or maybe he just imagined it and had nightmares for a week after for nothing.


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> And since when does asking questions, discussing ideas and arguing their merits qualify as "pushing" one's theories?



I think there is a difference between honest questioning and those that are sneaky ways of pushing an agenda. When I see someone start a thread linking to a silly conspiracy theory site and say 'wow- what do you think', watch as all the theories they say they want people to to think about get shot down in reasoned debate and they slowly back off from that thread as it becomes clear that there is no merit to the theories _only to repeat that behavior when the old thread seems to have been forgotten_ I think I see someone not interested in honest questions.





upnorthkyosa said:


> I believe that my next post politely asked if you would provide some specific concrete examples of things that would cause you to reconsider.  My comment that your post was diffuse was because you left it up to me to imagine what you think.  I wanted to hear what *you* think, specifically.



If you really can't think of something, how about this. If something like the New York Times said that they found a body that was a few years old that they matched the DNA to Osama Bin Laden I would then doubt that the tapes he supposably made were by him. If other sources of the same quality as the NYT did their own research and confirmed it as they do, then you could convince me that someone had some explaining to do. 

Or maybe this- if one of these web sites that so want to push their ideas that the official story's science does not add up convinced a paper like the NYT or Financial Times of London to come out and agree with them, I would take notice- especially if the science held up and was confired by other reputable sources.

My idea of a reliable source is not some group that seems to exist mainly on the internet or in publications I have never even seen.


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm just as blind as you.  All I can see is what they post about themselves.



I never trust what people like this say about themselves. Why would anyone trust someone like this without independent proof? That would be like trusting some of these ninja that post on the internet. After the way you went on about the Scholars for 9-11 truth you would think that a reasonbale person would reserve judgement until they knew more from established sources.


----------



## Mr. E

tshadowchaser said:


> Thhis one is so stupid it dose not really need to be considered.  I had a friend that was driving in from N.J. that saw the 2nd plan hit  or maybe he just imagined it and had nightmares for a week after for nothing.



Well if you think about it, there are plenty of sites that try to say that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane. That was also witnessed by people stuck in traffic. So it is not much of a stretch.

Here is what someone on a forum actually said when faced with a list of witnesses that said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.



> Consider this - how many witnesses say they saw something different? How many witnesses say they saw a truck or a small plane, or even a cruise missile? Has anyone ever bothered to count that? Too many times negative data is ignored in favor of the positive - this is special pleading. A great example of this is the specific decision by the FBI to choose witnesses who heard three shots, anyone else who heard anything else was ignored. Also, consider all of the people who claim to have seen aliens or have been abducted by aliens. There are a lot of fine and upstanding citizens who have made such claims. Yet, are they to believed because they are many? Here is an example of an interaction...
> 
> Confused bystander 1 - "oh my god the pentagon is on fire?"
> Official interviewer - "Did you see a plane?"
> Confused bystander 1 "No"
> Official interviewer - "thank you for your help."
> 
> Confused bystander 2 - "oh my god the pentagon is on fire?"
> Official interviewer - "Did you see a plane?"
> Confused bystander 2 - "uh maybe.. it was really fast."
> Official interviewer - "what did the plane look like?"
> Confused bystander 2 - "it had wings, uhh blue markings with a red stripe?"
> Official interviewer - "Was it large..."
> 
> See where this is going? This is a common tactic used by people who are looking for specific information.



Yeah, this really pushes things. But considering that even 6 years later we are still discussing whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, it is one of those things that make you wonder about humanity.


----------



## Big Don

While I have read more than a few articles in which the truther's assertions are debunked point by point, I have yet to see any conspiracy theorist attempt to debunk Popular Mechanics. 
In every facet of life you are known by those you associate with, Rosie O'Donnel l and her completely stupid claim that "Fire doesn't melt steel" isn't something I would want to have associated with me. Nor, would the towering intellect of Charlie Sheen be a rallying point...


----------



## shesulsa

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
*Moderation note:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Admin.*


----------



## Mr. E

Big Don said:


> While I have read more than a few articles in which the truther's assertions are debunked point by point, I have yet to see any conspiracy theorist attempt to debunk Popular Mechanics.



Some have. For example, I have seen posts by people saying that the Scholars for 9-11 Truth have shot down what they wrote as if we should accept them as being bigger experts than Popular Mechanics and bow to their authority. Few attempts to really deal with the matters so the rest of us can see how things went on, and really it is above most of our heads. And then it turns out that these guys really are not as experts as they would have us believe.

But if you punch in 9-11 and Popular Mechanics, you will see site after site listed talking about how they were shot down as if it were fact.


----------



## Makalakumu

Mr. E said:


> If you really can't think of something, how about this.


 
I can think of plenty of things, but they probably wouldn't meet the criteria that you set.



> If something like the New York Times said that they found a body that was a few years old that they matched the DNA to Osama Bin Laden I would then doubt that the tapes he supposably made were by him. If other sources of the same quality as the NYT did their own research and confirmed it as they do, then you could convince me that someone had some explaining to do.
> 
> Or maybe this- if one of these web sites that so want to push their ideas that the official story's science does not add up convinced a paper like the NYT or Financial Times of London to come out and agree with them, I would take notice- especially if the science held up and was confired by other reputable sources.
> 
> My idea of a reliable source is not some group that seems to exist mainly on the internet or in publications I have never even seen.


 
I see your point regarding the DNA, but what if other experts analyzed certain features of the tapes and determined that they were either mistranslated by the US or it was not UBL speaking in the tapes?

Other then that, the rest of your evidential criterion reads like a classical appeal to authority.

I'm also finding a little irony in the fact that certain people criticize the NYT in some discussions and then hold them up as a journalistic standard in others.  One would think that the general criticisms raised in other threads would hold up across the board...

So, how about some more concrete examples of things that would convince you?  How about some that specifically addressing some of the broader points in this thread?


----------



## Blotan Hunka

This is turning into a "what will make you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy?" thread. Re-wording "heres proof 9/11 was a conspiracy", to "what will make you believe it" isnt very productive.

In a "NUT" shell, I havent seen any "proof" from any significant (in qualifications or numbers) source that counters the avalanche of studies, experts, foundations and associations that currently explain the WTC collapse. The last "expert" held up was shot down in flames. How the conspiracy crowd can ignore that and soldier on is beyond me.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is turning into a "what will make you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy?" thread. Re-wording "heres proof 9/11 was a conspiracy", to "what will make you believe it" isnt very productive.


 
BH, I hold no such delusions of granduer that I would even think for one second that I could suddenly sway you are certain other MT members that there is reason to doubt.  

Perhaps you really do see something really simple and I am way to biased and dimwitted to understand.  

This is why I'm probing for more concrete examples and testing to see if they hold water.  I'd like to get a sense of you and other members hold the bar in regards to these things and I'd like to try and test that position a bit to see how it stands.

Maybe it really does have merit?


----------



## Blotan Hunka

So much for the A&E for 9/11 truth..check out this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-83483.html

I wonder how many on that list are real people at all. I just added myself. Lets see if Dr. Hunka appears shortly.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> So much for the A&E for 9/11 truth..check out this thread.
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-83483.html
> 
> I wonder how many on that list are real people at all. I just added myself. Lets see if Dr. Hunka appears shortly.


 
Hmm.  I think that's it.  If your name shows up, I'm done with this.  Truly.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Is Ae911truth.org A 9/11 Cover Up Perp Site?



> Less than 24 hours later, Gage disabled the forums. This did not come as a surprise actually, since Gage is promoting Steven Jones and is therefore a 9/11 Coverup Perp distracting people from the REAL provable inside job evidence of Exotic Weaponry and TV-Fakery at the WTC.
> 
> Steven Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
> 
> Another Cover Up Perp, Greg Jenkins, did an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. It has recently been discovered that Jenkins' has ties to the NSA. Only after a close analysis of this interview:
> http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html did Dr Wood realize what Jenkins wanted kept secret.
> 
> Judy's new paper is based on the data that Jones/Jenkins want kept hidden:
> 
> Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
> http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html
> 
> 
> Jones and his group have been doing everything possible to discourage people from looking at Judy Wood's directed energy weapon work and the obvious TV-Fakery evidence. (Yes, obvious, as demonstrated in the links at the top.) Why is Jones doing this?
> 
> 
> Wood filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with NIST, and this RFC is archived on a US Government website:
> http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...y/PROD01_002619
> 
> Where is Jones' RFC? I don't see it there. Where is it? Where is the proof that he even sent one? No, a press release is not proof. Dr Wood sent her RFC registered mail, return receipt requested. Did Jones do this? I doubt it.
> 
> Jones is a cold fusion and 9/11 fraud. People need to wake up and look at the bigger picture to what's happening.
> 
> 9/11 wasn't about the "Neocon political agenda", it was about energy. It was about population reduction. Read the info here and learn that Jones was a plant in 1989 to discredit free-energy research:
> http://www.911researchers.com/node/125
> 
> Are you aware that, in 2004, Dr Eugene Mallove wrote an open letter to the world asking for research funds for Cold Fusion and Zero Point energy? A few months later, Eugene was murdered.
> 
> A very similar situation is of Michael Zebuhr, a 9/11 research student of Judy Wood's, who did experiments to prove Jones' research faulty. A few weeks later, he was murdered.
> 
> And then there's the Virginia Tech "inside job". Why didn't the police close off the area following that massacre? Perhaps it's because they knew who the perpetrators were. It just so happens that Judy Wood graduated from V-Tech and it was some of her instructors who were killed, one of them in the very classroom she sat in. The first murder took place in the only dorm she used on campus.
> 
> All Judy wants people to do is look at the data, the same data that Jones and his group discourage people from looking at. There is mass internet censorship of Dr Wood's work. Yet, it's her work that stands up to the facts.
> 
> People say that a directed energy weapon cannot "dustify" steel. But it can! Watch the film "Race To Zero Point" on google and you will learn. Zero Point... the same technology that Dr Mallove wanted research funds for. And then he was murdered.
> 
> People need to start thinking for themselves and looking at evidence. Where is the proof that Jones found evidence of thermate? For all we know his baggie could be contents from his vacuum cleaner.
> 
> Jones/Jenkins have ties to Los Alamos directed energy weapon research. This is the same technology that Judy Wood's censored work is about.
> 
> For everyone's sake, I hope the bigger picture is becoming clearer to everyone!
> 
> The new OGCT will soon become "conventional controlled demolition" of the towers and WTC 7 after "the airplanes hit". No mention of the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5, no mention of toasted cars, no mention of TV-Fakery. What will happen then? A new investigation based on the work of a former Los Alamos researcher? What will happen then? Impeach Bush? What will that do? We must remove the 9/11 perpetrators from power. This includes people associated with directed energy weapons, as well as the corporate media.
> 
> For the future of humanity, this is what must be done.
> 
> Are we now getting the bigger picture?



Man O' Man. Thats it. Im starting my own theory.

These conspiracy theories were born out of Islamic propaganda spread on the 'net which began less then 3 days after the attacks of 9/11. 

The truthers are too stupid to see who cause it is they serve.

BTW heres another story by those Government Stooges at Scientific American.


----------



## grydth

I hope all of you realize that, in a few months when Hellary is elected President, you will all have to trade places.... you left guys will have to argue faith in the government and you conservatives will become the conspiracy theorists...:uhohh:


----------



## Blotan Hunka

grydth said:


> I hope all of you realize that, in a few months when Hellary is elected President, you will all have to trade places.... you left guys will have to argue faith in the government and you conservatives will become the conspiracy theorists...:uhohh:


 
I can hardly wait. That could be fun.


----------



## Makalakumu

grydth said:


> I hope all of you realize that, in a few months when Hellary is elected President, you will all have to trade places.... you left guys will have to argue faith in the government and you conservatives will become the conspiracy theorists...:uhohh:


 
I don't know man.  I'm pretty tired of all this.  Mr. E asked if I had examined my own biases and I truly have.  And I've long expected that all of this is more of a reflection of what's inside then out.  This is one of the reason's I think I need to move because if I really feel this way, why bother people with my rants on the internet about it and go with my gut.  Being on the other side of this debate would be like pounding a straw into your brain with a feather.


----------



## grydth

upnorthkyosa said:


> I don't know man.  I'm pretty tired of all this.  Mr. E asked if I had examined my own biases and I truly have.  And I've long expected that all of this is more of a reflection of what's inside then out.  This is one of the reason's I think I need to move because if I really feel this way, why bother people with my rants on the internet about it and go with my gut.  Being on the other side of this debate would be like pounding a straw into your brain with a feather.



If it bothers you at that personal a level, then why not post exclusively on MA related topics and give the politics a vacation? You certainly have valuable things to share on a variety of MA themes. I think its good, if not necessary, for most of us to take periodic sabbaticals from the craziness of today's current affairs.


----------



## Makalakumu

grydth said:


> If it bothers you at that personal a level, then why not post exclusively on MA related topics and give the politics a vacation? You certainly have valuable things to share on a variety of MA themes. I think its good, if not necessary, for most of us to take periodic sabbaticals from the craziness of today's current affairs.


 
Good advice...


----------



## crushing

upnorthkyosa said:


> Good advice...


 
But, not before you offer your thoughts on the UF Student Getting Tazed, please.  If you don't mind.


----------



## Big Don

The sentence that is most striking in the Popular Mechanics article is in regard to WTC 7, about which the kooks are all aflutter.


> "There was no firefighting in WTC 7,"


Gee, no firefighting and multiple large tanks of fuel, at least one of which was pressurized, that couldn't contribute to disasterous results.


----------



## Mr. E

upnorthkyosa said:


> I see your point regarding the DNA, but what if other experts analyzed certain features of the tapes and determined that they were either mistranslated by the US or it was not UBL speaking in the tapes?
> 
> Other then that, the rest of your evidential criterion reads like a classical appeal to authority.



Ironic that you would talk about 'experts' and then say that my standards are an appeal to authority.

Here is the thing, I can bet that one guy can make a mistake. That is why newspapers make retractions from time to time.

So if one guy says something, I may listen- but the truth is not exclusive to one source to other sources could examine the same tapes and come up with the same conclusions. If there is _only one_ or even just a few, then there is some controversy and I will not accept what they say.

And those sources must really say what they are supposed to have said and they must be known quantaties. 

There are neo-nazis out there trying to push the idea that the world is really controlled by jews. They will say anything to push their agenda. A lot of these conspiracy theories seem to track back to them. Considering that they can set up a web site, in some cases several web sites, a source that is quoted only on a web site is not to be trusted.

A known quantity like the NYT or Popular Mechanics is not infallible, but they do have a repuation to worry about. And with a story this big, they would not be the only ones to pick things up.

So if multiple known and respected sources pick up a story, independently examine the evidence and report the same thing, it would be something I would listen to.

A web site saying that someone found that tapes were faked- repeated multiple times on other sites- does not meet that standard.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

upnorthkyosa said:


> Hmm. I think that's it. If your name shows up, I'm done with this. Truly.


 

Upnorth. One thing I would like to make clear. While I may think you have a proclivity for this conspiracy stuff. I do not doubt that you are a fine person. From what I have seen here you are a teacher, devoted father and husband and a fellow countryman of mine. This kind of debate is, at its root what is best about our society. No shadowy gvt agency is out there trying to shut this down. While I may be poking a little fun with the "wingnut" shots (more at the whole conspiracy crowd than any particular person), please dont think I feel any animosity towards you.

Back on topic though, This AE911truth.org site...even if this guy has made some attempt to verify applications and I dont make it on. That doesnt really prove anything. Im pretty confident that if I could play a good enough act and talk the right lingo I could pass muster. A list of unverified names on a splinter site from all those other "9/11 truth" sites, that has already been shown to lack verification is suspect as a source of "proof" IMO. In addition just as there are "bad cops" and "bad soldiers" out there that are not representative of the whole. This little list, even if (now)verified, probably falls well below the average span of varying opinion. Just like we could compare lists of scientists on each side of global warming. Whats your stance on the (im shure in your opinion rather than mine) "minority" of scientists who dont believe in man-made global warming?


----------



## Kreth

I'm a little late to the party, but for every conspiracy site out there, there's a corresponding site refuting the claims. For example, loosechangesucks.com takes the key points in the Loose Change mockumentary and disproves them, one by one.
I agree with an earlier poster that if the Bush regime wanted to carry out this plot, then it would have been a hell of a lot easier to physically hijack a plane.


----------



## JBrainard

Just to add fuel to the fire:

A 2,000 word article, *Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report* -- _Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up"_, appeared today on OpEdNews. Link to article.


----------



## Mr. E

I looked through the "report" and found a lot about what the ex-CIA guys did and the fact that they expressed concerns- but no hard facts or anything other than a lot of vitrol aimed at the present administration.

I did a search of a few names on the list and it looks like they take every chance they get to grab the spotlight and attack the current administration. This is just another case.

I could find nothing that counts as any sort of fact to add to the debate in that 200o word piece.


----------



## Big Don

Apparently, at least one former truther managed to yank his head out of his butt. His story:
http://extruther.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-resignation.html


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Big Don said:


> Apparently, at least one former truther managed to yank his head out of his butt. His story:
> http://extruther.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-resignation.html


 
Wow! Interesting blog.


----------



## jazkiljok

funny that, it's the only issue he will defend Bush on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21392624/


----------



## Big Don

jazkiljok said:


> funny that, it's the only issue he will defend Bush on.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21392624/


Yes, nimrods are a hassle for everyone


----------



## elder999

Big Don said:


> Yes, *nimrods* are a hassle for everyone


 
Bill Mahers a _hunter?_ *Hunters* are a hassle for everyone? 

I'm confused....

(While the etymological root of 'nimrod' in English is "hunter,' it implies 'rebellious' in Hebrew.Most interestingly, it probably came to mean "a silly person" after Bugs Bunny used it to refer to Elmer Fudd as a "poor little nimrod,' referring to his _hunting._ :lol: Of course, Bill Maher is a _comedian_, which makes hiom a *professional* silly person, unlike Rush Limbaugh, who makes no pretense even towards comedy, but is four-times the _nimrod_, at least.....:lol

Of course, maybe you were referring to the protester.....


----------



## Doc_Jude

*Steel Ignores Jet Fuel* by Edward Mitchell


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Doc_Jude said:


> *Steel Ignores Jet Fuel* by Edward Mitchell


 


> by Edward Mitchell
> I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer


 
That about says it all dude. Try here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html



> However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling.


 
Nobody said that steel had to "melt".


----------



## Doc_Jude

Blotan Hunka said:


> That about says it all dude.



No it doesn't dude.


----------



## CanuckMA

Blotan Hunka said:


> That about says it all dude. Try here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that steel had to "melt".


 
Notice there is always that emphasis on 'steel could not have melted in that fire' from the conspirasists. Because it's the only true statement they can make. All that was needed was to soften and weaken the structure. Weight and gravity did the rest.


----------

