Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
Re-read. Ill take the word of demo experts over an arson investigator, since the WTC wasnt an arson.
Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
Re-read. Ill take the word of demo experts over an arson investigator, since the WTC wasnt an arson.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
:erg:
Mr. E
Blue Belt
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
3rd Black Belt
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.
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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.
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
3rd Black Belt
Forgot something...
Mr. E
Blue Belt
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
Blue Belt
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.
This sort of rhetoric is not very polite and it doesn't advance the discourse I attempted to make with you in good faith.
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
Blue Belt
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
Master Black Belt
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
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
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1230517.html
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
Master Black Belt
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:
From the Time article that started this thread:
TimoS
Master of Arts
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
It's things like these that make me really think that I may need to retract any doubt that I may have...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Blue Belt
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.
