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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That about says it all dude.

No it doesn't dude.

 

[CanuckMA]

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.