ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 24th August 2006, 05:51 AM   #41
Johnny Pixels
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,389
Originally Posted by brumsen View Post
Is not exactly a contradiction. CTers would hold that the manifest was changed afterwards; it could be that terrorists were added but that they forgot to add Bingham, who wasn't on it in the first place.
Yes, they really are that bad at making up stories.
Johnny Pixels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 06:31 AM   #42
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by brumsen View Post
And of course, last but not least.... quite a few contradictions can only be generated if you use statements from different CT'ers. But obviously they do not speak through one mouth.
Certainly they're not going to agree with each other, 'cause they're just making up stuff.

What we are looking for is a CTer/ist that HAS a coherent theory, which accounts for all facts, which they are willing to defend. In the months that this topic has been discussed here and on other boards, including LC, there has not been a single coherent overarching theory. They're just "asking questions", like IDers.

Give us a single theory that explains things to the depth of the "OCT", and then, with any luck, there won't be any opportunity to discuss internal contradictions.
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:28 AM   #43
brumsen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by juryjone View Post
Give us a single theory that explains things to the depth of the "OCT", and then, with any luck, there won't be any opportunity to discuss internal contradictions.
I think that this shows this whole thread to be misguided.
Contradictions between different theories aren't internal contradictions.
Rather, the issue is the one stated here by you in one single sentence.
brumsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:30 AM   #44
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Updated list of CT contradictions:

1. A missile hit the Pentagon/Light poles were plucked out of the ground close to the Pentagon.

2. A missile hit the Pentagon/There was a small amount of airplane debris found on the yard of the Pentagon.

3. NORAD stood down/Flight 93 was shot down.

4. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions/Thermite (a non-explosive) reactions were used to weaken the steel beams, as confirmed by Steven Jones.

5. The towers fell neatly within their own footprints/Heavy steel columns from the towers landed as far away as 600 feet, indicating they were thrown outwards by explosives.

6. 9/11 enabled the US to invade Afghanistan so they could build a pipeline/Al Qaeda and the Taliban are puppets of the CIA/ISI (why the need to invade?).

7. Nobody was fired for their failures after 9/11, which obviously means they behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job/General Ahmad of the ISI was fired for sending money to Atta, which obviously means he behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job.

8. The fact of controlled demolition is obvious from watching videos/The collapse was designed to not look like controlled demolition.

9. It was controlled demolition/the towers and WTC7 fell faster than free fall speeds.

10. The announcement to tenants of WTC 2 (the South Tower) that it was safe to remain in or go back to their offices was intended to maximize casualties/the fact that the first building was hit before 9:00 AM was intended to minimize casualties.

11. People made insider trades from within the WTC towers to make money off the attacks; their hard drives were demolished in the collapse of the building, destroying any evidence of the trades.

12. Firefighters and police officers were given a gag order not to talk about what they experienced in the towers on 9-11/many firefighters and police officers have conducted interviews about what they went through.

13. The cell phone calls were faked using voice morphing technology/it's impossible to use a cell phone at altitude.

14. Flight attendant Betty Ong should not be believed because she sounded too calm in her telephone call/flight attendant Madeline Sweeney should not be believed because she did not sound calm enough in her telephone call.

15. Firefighters should be believed when they say that they heard explosions in the twin towers/Firefighters should not be believed when they say that they saw massive damage and fires on multiple floors in WTC7.

16. To CTists, it wouldn't be difficult for the government to keep a massive conspiracy like this completely secret/CTists have discovered the truth.

17. 2 weeks of heightened security was dropped the day before 9-11/Controlled demo teams placed charges in the towers undetected in the weeks prior to 9-11.


Obviously trying to pinpoint a common theory that all CTists believe is more difficult than nailing Jello to a brick wall, so I would like to try to stick to the aspects of the more commonly-held CTs. I think even some of the most diehard CTists would think the hologram believers are certifiably insane, so I think we should exclude their theory in its entirety. Adding their thoughts will only give those CTists presented with this list an excuse to dismiss the whole thing simply because we've added the most ridiculous of theories, which a very small amount of CTists actually believe in.

If I've omitted anyone's contradiction, I did so because I didn't think it was especially strong, or it really wasn't a contradiction. If you feel I've made a mistake, though, by all means make a case. By the same token, feel free to suggest I remove any from the list.

Last edited by TK0001; 24th August 2006 at 08:23 AM.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:34 AM   #45
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 878
I don't think it's necessarily misguided. Due to the lack of a single alternative theory, all there are are opinions which contradict each other.

Perhaps this thread could spur the creation of a coherent theory. (Yeah, right. ) In the meantime, it's fun and instructive - to show the contradictions and thus be better prepared to pin down a CTer/ist on which of the "facts" he/she is espousing.
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:34 AM   #46
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
 
Bronze Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
Quote:
Obviously trying to pinpoint a common theory that all CTists believe is more difficult than nailing Jello to a brick wall...
...on a hot day.
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne

Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I

A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel
Bronze Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:36 AM   #47
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
For what it's worth, I think 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are the strongest contradiction thus far.

Honorable mention to 14. I just have never heard the part about Madeline Sweeney before.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:39 AM   #48
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by juryjone View Post
In the meantime, it's fun and instructive - to show the contradictions and thus be better prepared to pin down a CTer/ist on which of the "facts" he/she is espousing.
Thanks, I thought it would be interesting as well. When we refine the list, I'd like to add citations to each contradiction and present it to CTists.

I just can't imagine their reactions.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:41 AM   #49
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Also, can a mod please edit the title to read: 9/11 Conspiracy Contradictions?

I can't edit it myself for some reason.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:50 AM   #50
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,440
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
Updated list of CT contradictions:

10. The announcement for people in WTC 2 (the South Tower) that it was safe for people to remain in or go back to their office was intended to maximize casualties/the fact that the planes were relatively empty was intended to minimize casualties.
Let me reword that; I made a hash of it the first time:

10. The announcement to tenants of WTC 2 (the South Tower) that it was safe to remain in or go back to their offices was intended to maximize casualties/the fact that the first building was hit before 9:00 AM was intended to minimize casualties.

Quote:
13. The cell phone calls were faked using voice morphing technology/it's impossible to use a cell phone at altitude.
This one seems a little off. I'm sure what Dylan and Company would say is that the cellphone calls were faked using voice morphing technology by people on the ground, and that the reason they know this is that it's impossible to use a cellphone at altititude. No internal contradiction there.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 24th August 2006 at 07:58 AM. Reason: second thoughts
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:58 AM   #51
brumsen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
Updated list of CT contradictions:
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
For what it's worth, I think 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are the strongest contradiction thus far.
huh? 13? (ETA: dang! Brainster was ahead of me)

Well, in any case.... feel free to completely ignore my post.
brumsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 08:29 AM   #52
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
This one seems a little off. I'm sure what Dylan and Company would say is that the cellphone calls were faked using voice morphing technology by people on the ground, and that the reason they know this is that it's impossible to use a cellphone at altititude. No internal contradiction there.
I agree, but let me try to put into words what's bouncing around in my brain:

On it's face, it looks like a valid contradiction, and we know that CTists don't exactly like to research facts....at all. Also, we all know that the voice morphing can only be done with recorded data, so where they did it seems moot. Considering today's technology, the voice morphing couldn't have possibly happened either way (on the ground, or in the air). So, in order to believe it happened at all, one has to suspend disbelief and imagine non-existent technology. And my point is this non-existent technology could take place from anywhere - on the ground, in the air, from Pluto, wherever.

That's probably a weak argument, though.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:40 AM   #53
Joytown
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
I agree, but let me try to put into words what's bouncing around in my brain:

On it's face, it looks like a valid contradiction, and we know that CTists don't exactly like to research facts....at all. Also, we all know that the voice morphing can only be done with recorded data, so where they did it seems moot. Considering today's technology, the voice morphing couldn't have possibly happened either way (on the ground, or in the air). So, in order to believe it happened at all, one has to suspend disbelief and imagine non-existent technology. And my point is this non-existent technology could take place from anywhere - on the ground, in the air, from Pluto, wherever.

That's probably a weak argument, though.
Actually the more I think about it I tend to agree - as stated, it's not the best argument.

In general I was trying to find an example where they use the content of a cell phone call as evidence against hijacking, but then claim cell phone calls were not possible. I wish I could find the specific reference to this I saw a month or so back, but until I do, I suppose it's best to leave this off the list.

-Joytown
Joytown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:45 AM   #54
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Joytown View Post
Actually the more I think about it I tend to agree - as stated, it's not the best argument.

In general I was trying to find an example where they use the content of a cell phone call as evidence against hijacking, but then claim cell phone calls were not possible. I wish I could find the specific reference to this I saw a month or so back, but until I do, I suppose it's best to leave this off the list.

-Joytown
Fair enough.

The new updated list:

1. A missile hit the Pentagon/Light poles were plucked out of the ground close to the Pentagon.

2. A missile hit the Pentagon/There was a small amount of airplane debris found on the yard of the Pentagon.

3. NORAD stood down/Flight 93 was shot down.

4. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions/Thermite (a non-explosive) reactions were used to weaken the steel beams, as confirmed by Steven Jones.

5. The towers fell neatly within their own footprints/Heavy steel columns from the towers landed as far away as 600 feet, indicating they were thrown outwards by explosives.

6. 9/11 enabled the US to invade Afghanistan so they could build a pipeline/Al Qaeda and the Taliban are puppets of the CIA/ISI (why the need to invade?).

7. Nobody was fired for their failures after 9/11, which obviously means they behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job/General Ahmad of the ISI was fired for sending money to Atta, which obviously means he behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job.

8. The fact of controlled demolition is obvious from watching videos/The collapse was designed to not look like controlled demolition.

9. It was controlled demolition/the towers and WTC7 fell faster than free fall speeds.

10. The announcement to tenants of WTC 2 (the South Tower) that it was safe to remain in or go back to their offices was intended to maximize casualties/the fact that the first building was hit before 9:00 AM was intended to minimize casualties.

11. People made insider trades from within the WTC towers to make money off the attacks; their hard drives were demolished in the collapse of the building, destroying any evidence of the trades.

12. Firefighters and police officers were given a gag order not to talk about what they experienced in the towers on 9-11/many firefighters and police officers have conducted interviews about what they went through.

13. Flight attendant Betty Ong should not be believed because she sounded too calm in her telephone call/flight attendant Madeline Sweeney should not be believed because she did not sound calm enough in her telephone call.

14. Firefighters should be believed when they say that they heard explosions in the twin towers/Firefighters should not be believed when they say that they saw massive damage and fires on multiple floors in WTC7.

15. To CTists, it wouldn't be difficult for the government to keep a massive conspiracy like this completely secret/CTists have discovered the truth.

16. 2 weeks of heightened security was dropped the day before 9-11/Controlled demo teams placed charges in the towers undetected in the weeks prior to 9-11.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 08:30 PM   #55
Woody-
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 145
"molten steel" found in the rubble weeks after the attack is proof that thermite/explosives were used.

Thermite and explosives are both fact acting, any heat they generate is gone in seconds, it doesnt hang around for weeks.
Woody- is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 08:33 PM   #56
pchams
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 818
Squibs

Here is the latest unanswered question on pancaking:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ic=11383&st=30
pchams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:06 PM   #57
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
Fair enough.

The new updated list:

I'd like to argue for the phone calls.

It's much like the invade Afghanistan one. Faking impossible phone calls defies internal CT logic. If you fake something that is impossible, you'll be found out.

If the government really did fake 9/11 surely they would just not make any calls whatsoever - since making calls would be impossible.

The only reason the phone call faking theory exists is because it happened, and the passengers are the big stick in the spokes of the CT wheel. They need to explain away the phone calls - so they do it with two theories:
1) Calls are fake
2) Calls are impossible

If the calls were impossible, but you faked the calls anyway, you would have to be the most retarded evil conspirator ever.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:20 PM   #58
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
-Bush planned the 9/11 attacks so he could rally the US around him in a cult of personality. He is an evil mastermind.

-Bush finds out about the attacks while reading a book about goats to school kids. He waits forever before he acts. What a dope.

(Side note: If Bush did plan it, wouldn't he plan it for a day when he was doing something more presidential? Like visiting a military base or something? Wouldn't he snap into action immediately?)
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 04:43 AM   #59
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
-The FDR from the WTC where never found, FBI made them dissappear.
-The FDR from the Pentagon and Shankville, where foudn, FBI planted them.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 05:46 AM   #60
realitybites
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I'd like to argue for the phone calls.

It's much like the invade Afghanistan one. Faking impossible phone calls defies internal CT logic. If you fake something that is impossible, you'll be found out.

If the government really did fake 9/11 surely they would just not make any calls whatsoever - since making calls would be impossible.

The only reason the phone call faking theory exists is because it happened, and the passengers are the big stick in the spokes of the CT wheel. They need to explain away the phone calls - so they do it with two theories:
1) Calls are fake
2) Calls are impossible

If the calls were impossible, but you faked the calls anyway, you would have to be the most retarded evil conspirator ever.

-Andrew
It's not all that contradictory to them Andrew because the government didn't know that making those calls would be impossible. This is information that's only come out since 9/11, thanks to the rigorous research of the truth movement.

And even if they did know, the gubmint assumed the public would be too stupid to check. Well... little did they know.

It's one of the things that makes the CTers feel special.
realitybites is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 08:10 AM   #61
firecoins
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,206
Donald Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon, on the other side of the building when the building was hit. If he was in on it, why wouldn't he be somewhere else?

If Bush & Co. could put explosives in three skysrapers without anyone seeing them, why could they not put WMD's in Iraq to fake Saddam's WMD program?
firecoins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 08:14 AM   #62
realitybites
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by firecoins View Post
If Bush & Co. could put explosives in three skysrapers without anyone seeing them, why could they not put WMD's in Iraq to fake Saddam's WMD program?
Oddly enough, that question was raised repeatedly at Ground Zero on Saturday. The answer from the truthers?

... It'd be too risky to plant WMDs.
realitybites is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 08:45 AM   #63
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by realitybites View Post
Oddly enough, that question was raised repeatedly at Ground Zero on Saturday. The answer from the truthers?

... It'd be too risky to plant WMDs.
Which is stupid: If Saddam had any WMDs, they would have had "Made in the USA" printed on them anyway...

All the gubmint needed to do was dump a couple - just a couple - of WMDs somewhere in Iraq, and Bush wouldn't have a hard time explaining why they weren't there.

You can land SEALs just about anywhere, but not equip them with a couple of VX gas containers, to be buried in the sand somewhere, in a country controlled by the US Military?

CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 08:47 AM   #64
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Which is stupid: If Saddam had any WMDs, they would have had "Made in the USA" printed on them anyway...

All the gubmint needed to do was dump a couple - just a couple - of WMDs somewhere in Iraq, and Bush wouldn't have a hard time explaining why they weren't there.

You can land SEALs just about anywhere, but not equip them with a couple of VX gas containers, to be buried in the sand somewhere, in a country controlled by the US Military?

I think the gubmint thought it morally wrong to do such a mean thing.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 08:50 AM   #65
realitybites
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
Well if I had to choose between planting WMDs in Iraq and blowing up the World Trade Center while the world watched, I'd choose "blowing up the World Trade Center while the world watched."

I just don't think I'd have the balls to plant WMDs in Iraq.
realitybites is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 09:34 AM   #66
firecoins
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,206
Ths US either has or could get WMD's made in other countries. I am sure they have Soviet era made weapons somewhere that why could bring into Iraq. We did have 2 no fly zones going so it wouldn't be too hard to SEALs or some other special unit in the country to plant the weapons.

I am sure the only reason the US military hasn't found out WMDs in Iraq is because they are invisible much like the one in the WTC
firecoins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 09:40 AM   #67
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by firecoins View Post
Ths US either has or could get WMD's made in other countries.
They can run secret prisons, but not dump a few WMDs?

This is soooo idiotic....
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 11:54 AM   #68
negativ
Graduate Poster
 
negativ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,904
I'm still waiting (sorta) to hear an explanation of the .gov's supposed motive which would require all the events of 9/11.

* Crash 1 plane into WTC1 -- OK.

* Crash 1 plane into WTC2 -- OK, but you just doubled the complexity of the operation.

* Collapse WTC2 -- two crashed planes, hundreds of people trapped in an inferno and hundreds more jumping to their deaths isn't enough yet? Complexity just increased a zillion-fold, given that "there's no way" the impact + fire would be sufficient to collapse the building.

* Collapse WTC1 -- Now we have two crashed planes, one collapsed building, hundreds if not thousands of dead by this point, all witnessed by almost everyone physically capable of watching TV. But we have to bring down WTC1 too. So far, it just hasn't been awful enough. Note that even though it was hit first, we have to collapse it second, because we had already plotted with exacting precision what the NIST final report would say, and its explanation for why the towers fell also predicts the order in which they fall. Good thing we aimed the planes properly.

* Two crashed planes full of passengers, two collapsed buildings full of people, plus rescue workers, reporters, and just plain folks on the ground are now dead in the most photographed and videotaped disaster event in at least 100 years, but this isn't enough to satisfy our plan. We must now crash a plane into the Pentagon. But it can't be a plane! It wouldn't do enough damage. It needs to be some sort of missile or military plane or something, because a crashed airliner into the side of the Pentagon would just be .. wrong. It wouldn't do what we need it to do. Regardless of the fact that our plan is now so convoluted even we can't understand it, the show must go on. So, launch ze missiles!

* Somehow, though, it still feels somewhat lackluster and ... oh, I dunno.. EMPTY somehow. We need a "hero" element to the story, because hundreds of cops, firefighters, and EMTs running into burning buildings with steel debris and bodies raining down isn't valiant enough. I know! Let's have a FOURTH plane crash in the middle of nowhere. But not really! We can't just crash the plane. We need to either shoot it down, or hide it in Chicago or Cleveland or somewhere, and then blow up a BOMB or something in the middle of nowhere and pretend the plane crashed there. That would work so much better. Get someone on that.

* But I don't think we're quite THERE yet, ya know what I mean? We need to put a punctuation mark on it, so that everyone will really be up in arms. Hmm... OH!! I know! WTC7! We can collapse it house later. If that's not the cherry on top, I don't know WHAT is.

Should be pretty easy. Take maybe a couple of weekends and 15 or 20 guys to make it happen. What? Nah, don't worry about it.. I know some guys. Coupla free movie passes and a bottle of champaigne each outta do it.
negativ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 02:48 PM   #69
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
The east penthouse of WTC7 collapsed 8 seconds before the rest of the building, and this is a sign of controlled demolition.
All of the supports failed at the same time, and this is a sign of controlled demolition.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 05:10 PM   #70
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by firecoins View Post
Ths US either has or could get WMD's made in other countries.

They don't even need to do that... they could just fabricate fake ones...

I mean, would YOU open it up just to check if it really was glowing green?

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2006, 05:42 PM   #71
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
-The Naudet brothers where part of the plot, so they could film the first plane.
-The Naudet brothers where part of the plot, but failed to edit out all the evidence spoken of by the firefighters.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 04:42 AM   #72
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
A fairly recent one: The FDR data indicate a fly-over (indicated altitude just before impact is rather high), thus it was't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

This claim is intrinsically self-contradiction because the FDR was recovered or is claimed to be recovered from the Pentagon site. Thus, it must be a fake. Thus, a fake is used for evidence.

And, of course, the fact that the FDR data does not precisely support the official account is really good evidence that it is not a fake, because if they were to fake FDR data, surely they would make it fit their story.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 05:13 AM   #73
cludgie
Critical Thinker
 
cludgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 312
My favourite is the 'no steel framed building has ever failed due to fire' and the Windsor Tower in Madrid being wheeled out as an example of a steel framed structure that didn't collapse. Until you point out most the building is concrete cored (which didn't collapse) and the only wholly steel framed parts did collapse.
cludgie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 05:52 AM   #74
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Joytown View Post
Actually the more I think about it I tend to agree - as stated, it's not the best argument.

In general I was trying to find an example where they use the content of a cell phone call as evidence against hijacking, but then claim cell phone calls were not possible. I wish I could find the specific reference to this I saw a month or so back, but until I do, I suppose it's best to leave this off the list.

-Joytown
I think the list will be stronger for being strict. A claim can be nonsensical and silly without necessarily being contradictory. The clear contradictions will stand out better if there aren't debatable ones like the cellphones.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 06:01 AM   #75
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Steven Jones. Credible when talking about thermite. Not credible, when talking about Pentagon (he believes a plane hit).

Bush. Credible when talking about NWO stuff. Not credible, when talking about 9/11.

Osama. Credible when denying the attacks. Not credible when claiming responsibility of the attacks.

Eyewitness saw no plane parts, credible. Eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon, not credible.

CT's claim they would like to be proven wrong. When proven wrong they don't believe it.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 8th March 2007 at 06:06 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 01:04 PM   #76
firecoins
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,206
9/11 was a zionist plot to get help from the United States.
9/11 was a Nazi plot led by George Bush and his secret Nazi connections.
firecoins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 01:18 PM   #77
The Demon's Head
Crime cannot be tolerated
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
-Bush planned the 9/11 attacks so he could rally the US around him in a cult of personality. He is an evil mastermind.

-Bush finds out about the attacks while reading a book about goats to school kids. He waits forever before he acts. What a dope.

(Side note: If Bush did plan it, wouldn't he plan it for a day when he was doing something more presidential? Like visiting a military base or something? Wouldn't he snap into action immediately?)
I would argue that Bush didn't wait to act, but tried to not cause such a panic in the school room by making a hasty decision or make a hurried announcement that would cause panic. Either way, Bush did sit their for seven minutes while the country was under attack.

This is an excellent thread pointing out the flaws in the truthers liars logic.
__________________

The Demon's Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 03:08 PM   #78
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
I posted 1-10 on my blog:

http://electionnightspecial.blogspot...ions-1-10.html

Keep track like
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 05:07 PM   #79
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,984
- Flight 11 being caught on film is suspicious.
- Flight 77 not being caught on film is suspicious.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2007, 05:42 PM   #80
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
The evidence was whisked away before anyone could perform any investigation.

Steven Jones has taken samples which show evidence of thermate.

__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.