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 wtc collapse , wtc , 911 conspiracy theory , wtc1 , wtc2

Reply
Old 27th December 2005, 07:39 PM   #281
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!
Is it possible that David Copperfield made the WTC towers disappear?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer 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 27th December 2005, 07:58 PM   #282
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.
The level of ignorance in this sentence is staggering.

Perhaps you can provide a list of all structural columns that failed on the WTC as a result of wind loads over the last 30 years? There must have been quite a few.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 27th December 2005, 09:17 PM   #283
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Is it possible that David Copperfield made the WTC towers disappear?

Holy CRAP!!! We haven't heard anything from Copperfield for years....now we know why.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero 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 27th December 2005, 10:28 PM   #284
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.
Just to follow up on this point, the fuel did not all blow up at once because it is fuel, not an explosive. Do you know the difference? I'll give you a hint - it's something to do with oxygen.
CurtC 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 28th December 2005, 01:57 PM   #285
Starthinker
Philosopher
 
Starthinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,011
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
Holy CRAP!!! We haven't heard anything from Copperfield for years....now we know why.
I know I coveted his wife for many years.
__________________
|¶¶|¶ |¶||||¶|||¶||¶¶|¶|||||||¶|¶¶¶¶|¶¶¶¶||¶|¶|¶¶|¶ |¶¶|¶
He who doubts victory has already lost the battle.
Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.
Starthinker 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 28th December 2005, 09:52 PM   #286
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,374
Any ideas on how to get out of one of these debates gracefully?

I'm on page 16 of posts at the forum I mentioned where I'm vastly outnumbered and despite my own logical, independent thought (IMHO ) it's been devolving into an insult match. Now one of the CTs has cut and pasted the whole of this page into the thread:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

and I don't know if I've got the patience to address each point.

I've already been accused of having my head in the sand about the whole theory. I replied by saying they had their heads in clouds of bong smoke, and a moderator went ballistic.

This debate is addictive, but I just don't know if I'm that addicted.
Orphia Nay 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 28th December 2005, 10:30 PM   #287
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by Starthinker View Post
I know I coveted his wife for many years.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer 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 28th December 2005, 10:52 PM   #288
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
I just had a flash of insight. Of sorts.

I think it likely that what thesockpuppeteera means when it says "inductive" and "deductive" is something like "post hoc" and "open minded". It's complaining that the investigation (in its mind anyway) assumed the truth of the conventional story and sought to explain it, rather than approaching the whole affair as a mystery and searching for evidence of conspiracies.

It would almost be a valid point, if there had been any evidence that something weird had occurred in the first place.

For the record, no, I have never encountered anybody else using the terms this way. I'm not sure if it's a WTC-kook thing or a this-particular-kook thing but either way it's not normal use of the language in any branch of academia I'm familiar with.
Kevin_Lowe 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 28th December 2005, 11:44 PM   #289
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,374
Just re-read this post:

Originally Posted by richardm View Post

Have a look at this page, which includes pictures of the aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon.
Thanks. That's a handy link. The webfairy link to 'smokingguns' I just posted alleges that no plane hit the Pentagon, yet the CTs had earlier posted links to whatreallyhappened.com. They don't know what to believe, except anything but the 'official version'. They're so special, just not in the way they think they are.
Orphia Nay 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 28th December 2005, 11:48 PM   #290
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
Just re-read this post:

Thanks. That's a handy link. The webfairy link to 'smokingguns' I just posted alleges that no plane hit the Pentagon, yet the CTs had earlier posted links to whatreallyhappened.com. They don't know what to believe, except anything but the 'official version'. They're so special, just not in the way they think they are.
I've always found the plane-shaped impact scar on the pantagon to be rather convincing of an aircraft hit. The fuselage penetrated, but the wings had trouble and generally just blew out the infill walls. On the columns you can follow the line of the wings.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 29th December 2005, 12:10 AM   #291
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
Any ideas on how to get out of one of these debates gracefully?
I think The Central Scrutinizer posted a lovely beach photo that may serve as a distraction.

Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
I'm on page 16 of posts at the forum I mentioned where I'm vastly outnumbered and despite my own logical, independent thought (IMHO ) it's been devolving into an insult match. Now one of the CTs has cut and pasted the whole of this page into the thread:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

and I don't know if I've got the patience to address each point.
I'm confused. Was the 9/11 attacks so we could cover-up pentagon accounting errors, or so we could install a pipeline in Afghanistan?

Some of the points are just stupid. "Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse." This supports a conspiracy why?

Found a link the other day showing police shooting a man armed with a knife that charged them. He was shot repeatedly with pistol and shotgun fire. Comments on the film protested the police's "trigger happy" attitude because they didn't try shooting the knife out of his hand or just shoot him once. Some folks just have no connection with reality.

These people grab any little detail and use it to support their position, regardless of how weak it is becasue in their mind, "The government never makes mistakes, and any mistake is sign of a conspiracy." I worked for the DoD for over three years, and I know they aren't perfect. Shall I tell you of the time an Air Force Colonel was convinced that the only reason the trains blew their whistles at the road crossing by the base was to annoy the base residents? And we had a railroad representative come out and explain the relevant laws and regulations regarding railroad crossings and roads? And when all was said and done, he still didn't buy it?

There comes a time when you just smile and walk away, and a time when you laugh so hard you blow your drink out your nose all over their "The Truth is Out There" T-shirt. That time has come, IMHO. You will never convince them otherwise, and only serves a purpose if you like wrestling with pigs in the mud. Which makes me wonder why I've been posting the way I have been lately, as I hate pigs and mud.

At any rate, my point has been made. You can refute all you want. It isn't going to get you anywhere.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 29th December 2005, 12:20 AM   #292
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,374
That's a good point, patchbunny, thanks for your comment.

Pity they'll only believe a point if it's got a website attached, and then even rarely. That's why I'm getting nowhere at the moment, because I've been just using reasoning to debate them. They were the ones to start the thread and make the claim that bombs were used at the WTC. I'm not about to accept the shifting of the burden of proof onto me, but there may come a time when some of the links posted here might come in handy.

Speaking of which, does anyone remember where to find the post/link (controlleddemolition.com or something similar) about it taking weeks to set up a controlled demolition of a multi-storey building? I've been searching but can't find anything. I can find this:

Quote:
In the months prior to blow down day up to 40 Controlled Demolition Group staff soft stripped and pre-weakened the buildings, removing hazardous asbestos and asbestos contaminated artex using revolutionary safety techniques developed by the company.
at this page
but I thought the one I was looking for had more detail about installing the explosives. I hope the link wasn't at bautforum because that's making my old version of explorer crash.
Orphia Nay 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 29th December 2005, 12:26 AM   #293
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,374
Originally Posted by patchbunny View Post
I think The Central Scrutinizer posted a lovely beach photo that may serve as a distraction.


I'm confused. Was the 9/11 attacks so we could cover-up pentagon accounting errors, or so we could install a pipeline in Afghanistan?

Some of the points are just stupid. "Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse." This supports a conspiracy why?

Found a link the other day showing police shooting a man armed with a knife that charged them. He was shot repeatedly with pistol and shotgun fire. Comments on the film protested the police's "trigger happy" attitude because they didn't try shooting the knife out of his hand or just shoot him once. Some folks just have no connection with reality.

These people grab any little detail and use it to support their position, regardless of how weak it is becasue in their mind, "The government never makes mistakes, and any mistake is sign of a conspiracy." I worked for the DoD for over three years, and I know they aren't perfect. Shall I tell you of the time an Air Force Colonel was convinced that the only reason the trains blew their whistles at the road crossing by the base was to annoy the base residents? And we had a railroad representative come out and explain the relevant laws and regulations regarding railroad crossings and roads? And when all was said and done, he still didn't buy it?

There comes a time when you just smile and walk away, and a time when you laugh so hard you blow your drink out your nose all over their "The Truth is Out There" T-shirt. That time has come, IMHO. You will never convince them otherwise, and only serves a purpose if you like wrestling with pigs in the mud. Which makes me wonder why I've been posting the way I have been lately, as I hate pigs and mud.

At any rate, my point has been made. You can refute all you want. It isn't going to get you anywhere.
Your points are great, and make much sense to me. I fear you are right about it not getting me anywhere, except it feeding my apparent addiction. Although my brain does get a nice workout, as well.
Orphia Nay 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 29th December 2005, 12:28 AM   #294
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
Speaking of which, does anyone remember where to find the post/link (controlleddemolition.com or something similar) about it taking weeks to set up a controlled demolition of a multi-storey building? I've been searching but can't find anything. I can find this:


at this page
but I thought the one I was looking for had more detail about installing the explosives. I hope the link wasn't at bautforum because that's making my old version of explorer crash.
CDI is at http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?. I've seen Discovery or Nova specials with them before. You might try asking direct what help they can provide with some simple questions as to what goes into a demolition prep.

As a follow-up, I do know that it's not a matter of piling explosives next to a column or beam. You clear away the surrounding material first (i.e., all the material that hides that ugly steel frame), and (from what I"ve seen for steel) lay out carefully sized linear shaped charges to cut the steel. TNT "kicker" blocks are used to push the now cut bean out of the line of force so the building can't resettle on the column. You can tell if steel's been cut by a shaped charge by the copper traces left behind and the deformation patterns in the steel.

I don't doubt that shaped charges are also used for concrete, but I've not seen video of a concrete structure being prepped.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66

Last edited by patchbunny; 29th December 2005 at 12:32 AM.
patchbunny 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 29th December 2005, 01:00 AM   #295
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,374
Thanks again. I think the info at the 55 Wood Street Building might be useful.

Quote:
After two (2) months of preparation, CDIís 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structure.
Orphia Nay 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 29th December 2005, 05:44 PM   #296
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I just had a flash of insight. Of sorts.

I think it likely that what thesockpuppeteera means when it says "inductive" and "deductive" is something like "post hoc" and "open minded". It's complaining that the investigation (in its mind anyway) assumed the truth of the conventional story and sought to explain it, rather than approaching the whole affair as a mystery and searching for evidence of conspiracies.

It would almost be a valid point, if there had been any evidence that something weird had occurred in the first place.

For the record, no, I have never encountered anybody else using the terms this way. I'm not sure if it's a WTC-kook thing or a this-particular-kook thing but either way it's not normal use of the language in any branch of academia I'm familiar with.

wow, you better put that flash of insight under a lamp cover, it might get blown out by the stiff breeze created by the skeptical wind machines on here.

You are correct, and should I be at all surprised it took until page 8 for you genius' to finally grasp such a simple concept?

Its not normal use of the word? Is that what was hanging you up? Come now, it's just a word, you know the meaning...I think I even posted it...couldn't you in the land of infinte logic have extrapolated this sooner?

My point, to state it for the board again, is that because a deductive investigation wasn't done..ie they didn't disprove all other possibilities, CT is allowed to thrive. Every contention made in support of the official theory after the fact will only further the CT claims because there is no way to prove something wrong when there is nothing to prove it wrong with..

ok, is the group still together? nobody got lost?

and on we go:

you would rather complain about Ct'ers than actually analyze the problems within the case itself. it must give your ego a nice boost to stomp all over the false assumptions of others, that said, it's no wonder why you all have reacted the way you did to some simple questions...

any amount of evidence will always be subverted when a government is secretive in anyway, and you can't deny that this government was secretive in almost every way.

thats why I asked, why not 1 photo of a plane hitting the pentagon, why not release the sealed photo's...etc...

they could end the controversy very easily, and they don't....this isn't suspect to you all I imagine, because your busy rationalizing why a government that is "by the people, for the people" needs to keep secrets from them.

the reason it is important in this case is simple as well...

you know were in a war right?

you know everything we have done regarding this war has been affected by this event?

I don't suppose the civillian casualty figures came up while you were frantically trying to locate the exact budget for the NIST investigation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is at odds with us, because of the people in question, and your too busy trying to prove there isn't a NWO to notice that there is a power elite messing things up for everyone.

All conspiracy talk aside, if there had been a legitimate investigation we might have found out a lot faster that they are completely f-ed and are completely ****** everything up, and we as voters and citizens would have been more equipt to deal with it...instead we get to watch it unravel over 8 years...and then deal with the consequences.

meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.

have fun.
thesyntaxera 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 29th December 2005, 06:39 PM   #297
Flange Desire
Muse
 
Flange Desire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Every contention made in support of the official theory after the fact will only further the CT claims because there is no way to prove something wrong when there is nothing to prove it wrong with..
Seems you have used the word 'theory' in an incorrect context
(but then again it is pretty hard to tell as the whole post if fairly incoherant).

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
you know were in a war right?
No.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.
Your xenocentricity is showing, and it seems your fulcrum may have slipped.
Flange Desire 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 29th December 2005, 06:47 PM   #298
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts. Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero 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 29th December 2005, 06:48 PM   #299
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Flange, I have no choice but to conclude that you are not a good american.

How despicable.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette 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 29th December 2005, 06:57 PM   #300
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
I for one am sick of people pretending that you have to believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories to oppose the administration or its war in Iraq. This is complete nonsense. If anything this actually distracts from the very real problems of US foreign policy. After all, if our own government conspires to kill thousands of its citizens, we don't have to reevaluate our policies of involvement in the Middle East. Then again, we couldn't really fight such a powerful government either, so we might as well sit on our collective ass, watch TV, and talk about the conspiracy on the Internet. Hopefully the government agents won't take us out for doing so.

I was against a war on Iraq long before anyone else started complaining, simply because the very premise is idiotic, they were clearly not connected with Al Qaeda, and it was clear that it would be a strategic headache. When I was in the army, around the time of 9-11, we were already beginning the transformation into a lighter, more rapidly deployable force designed to handle small, local conflicts(world police duties!). This was how many defense experts believed the wars of the future would look. Obviously, that is a bit short-sighted, but this is the direction the army was moving in. So essentially, moving in and conquering a country with conventional force was something the army was moving away from.

To date I don't know if they have had to severely alter those plans.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero 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 29th December 2005, 09:11 PM   #301
love
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts.
That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

I thought that was fishy.

Quote:
Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.
The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

What stops you subconscious believe seeing the evidence in front of your eyes is that to you the idea that knowing the government is conspiring against you is too dangerous. Your instincts take over to protect you.

That's what causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts, rather than the engagement of your own brain to analyze the evidence in front of you.

When I looked closely at the official story in order to construct a null hypothesis, I found that I simply could not make any consistent story out of the claims. The official story, is actually a patchwork of locally consistent stories, which completely fail to sit together globally.

The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

This is probably more than you can accept in one go. One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.
love 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 29th December 2005, 09:36 PM   #302
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by love View Post
That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything.
Translation: "I have made a complete and utter ass out of myself in the world press by making snap judgements before I have gotten off my ass and gathered what is known as "evidence". I'm going to shut up and go away before I embarrass myself further."

Originally Posted by love View Post
It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

I thought that was fishy.
I, too, find it fishy when people take the time to dig through the debris and study the evidence before drawing conclusions. What does the NTSB think they're doing, taking the time to examine plane wreckage and black boxes before issuing a conclusion as to what happened? They should know within hours.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I live in the real world where investigators, ya know, investigate.

Originally Posted by love View Post
The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.
OK, I've been sick for the last few days and I'm feeling pretty miserable. You're not helping matters my making me shoot peas from my nose. My sinuses have enough troubles.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 29th December 2005, 09:41 PM   #303
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by love View Post
The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.
Why would they want us to think that it is dangerous to fly?


Originally Posted by love View Post
The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.
Can you explain this? I can't understand what you mean by 'the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness'.

Originally Posted by love View Post
One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.
Can you explain how we will come to understand your perspective?

A further point, I don't understand why it was necessary to use explosives and planes.

Simply crashing two planes into the WTC and crashing two other planes would be a very spectacular event and enough to cause a fear of flying. Why would the added damage from exploding bombs be worth the expense and risk of detection?

Last edited by gtc; 29th December 2005 at 09:52 PM.
gtc 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 29th December 2005, 09:51 PM   #304
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit.
They have experts on "terror attacks on buildings now"? Jesus that's specific. However, that was not what I called for. I said "DEMOLITIONS EXPERT".

Originally Posted by love View Post
He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.
He probably withdrew the statement because he read the reports, and trusted architectural engineers were more qualified in that field than he with his "Terror attacks on Buildings" degree.


Originally Posted by love View Post
The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you.
Who planned that? Have Imperial Japanese navy pilots infiltrated our government? Do you have any idea how important our airline industry is? Do you know what happens to the economy when people won't fly? Trying to get people not to fly in this country is not simply shooting yourself in the foot. It is aiming a Vickers machine gun at your foot and firing until there is no more foot to shoot at...then shooting the other foot...then blowing yourself up with a grenade...while someone crashes a plane into you.

Originally Posted by love View Post
That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.
Hmm... I think you might be on to something. Every time I look at a plane, my mind automatically thinks, "THAT'S A PLANE!!!" Pavlovian!

Originally Posted by love View Post
What stops you subconscious believe seeing the evidence in front of your eyes is that to you the idea that knowing the government is conspiring against you is too dangerous. Your instincts take over to protect you.
What evidence? I'm sorry I didn't see any evidence but then again, I might have been busy looking at a plane.

Originally Posted by love View Post
That's what causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts, rather than the engagement of your own brain to analyze the evidence in front of you.
What causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts is when conspiracy jackasses present idiotic alternative scenarios by presenting a conclusion and then using real or imagined "holes" in the original scenario as evidence.

Originally Posted by love View Post
When I looked closely at the official story in order to construct a null hypothesis, I found that I simply could not make any consistent story out of the claims.
I'll do it for you:

Planes hit buildings, cause catastrophic structural failure, buildings come down.


Originally Posted by love View Post
The official story, is actually a patchwork of locally consistent stories, which completely fail to sit together globally.
See above.

Originally Posted by love View Post
The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.
They sure as hell can't affect us if they don't exist too.

Originally Posted by love View Post
This is probably more than you can accept in one go. One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.
If it turns out that I am one of those unfortunate souls whose mind inevitably rots due to schizophrenia(it's hereditary), and it may, I will consider believing in your conspiracy theory. However, till such time I will require evidence.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero 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 29th December 2005, 09:56 PM   #305
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by gtc View Post
Why would they want us to think that it is dangerous to fly?
It's part of a grand conspiracy to wipe out the airlines' pension funds. Instead of going after Osama Bin Laden we should have gone after James Goodwin.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 29th December 2005, 10:15 PM   #306
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by Flange Desire View Post
Seems you have used the word 'theory' in an incorrect context
(but then again it is pretty hard to tell as the whole post if fairly incoherant).


No.


Your xenocentricity is showing, and it seems your fulcrum may have slipped.
Pat yourself on the back Flange, you may have just been clever....wait no, sorry...

Theory is the proper term here. As there are no facts really, just inferences that seem most logical to you based on the presented information, that all comes from the official source(something that only prolongs conspiracy ramblings).

My xenocentricity? Awful big word to use, and what bearing does it have? If you want to run around prizing american pseudo culture thats fine...just try and appear as though you are not performing the robot while doing it.


As far as Demolitions experts....Zero, if you really want to base all this on what other people think after viewing the same video's CT's watch, then fine, do so, but as you probably know if you look long enough you will find conjectural opinions on anything. For example:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Quote:
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Quote:
One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Quote:
Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the “handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt” a symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work following the building collapses.

If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).
Personally, I think you guys should talk to some demolitions experts, instead just telling others to.

Last edited by thesyntaxera; 29th December 2005 at 10:29 PM.
thesyntaxera 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 29th December 2005, 10:28 PM   #307
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts. Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.
As I said, why don't you as well.

Because a typical demolition looks like these three building collapses, strikingly so. In fact most of the indications you make to the contrary are the clues that it was a demolition in the first place.

Explain how it was possible? Ok, if you have been researching this as long as you say then you should have heard multiple explanations on how it happened.

The leading one that can be verified is the number and frequency of emergency drills in the WTC. At some point power to whole sections of the building was shut down for an extended period of time, and people were evacuated temporarily.

Why a plane crash? Why not truck bombs? Didn't they try to bomb the basment once before and it didn't work? And wasn't a certain FBI agent ordered to stand down, and let the attack happen in that case, and didn't he even manage to get this order recorded to tape???


anyway like love said, the psychological impact is the biggest wave to emanate from this castrophe, regardless of preplanning or not...we all grabbed out flags and ran off to war...

Last edited by thesyntaxera; 29th December 2005 at 10:30 PM.
thesyntaxera 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 29th December 2005, 11:13 PM   #308
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
As I said, why don't you as well.

Because a typical demolition looks like these three building collapses, strikingly so. In fact most of the indications you make to the contrary are the clues that it was a demolition in the first place.
Sorry but in the real world, lots of things LOOK like other things. A building collapse is going to look relatively the same regardless of whether it collapsed due to explosives or other causes. Do you know why? Because EXPLOSIVES ARE USED TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Thus what you are seeing in a controlled demolition is a building collapsing, not a building being destroyed by explosives.

What are the notable differences? THE EXPLOSIONS ARE visible from the outside.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Explain how it was possible? Ok, if you have been researching this as long as you say then you should have heard multiple explanations on how it happened.
No, there are none.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
The leading one that can be verified is the number and frequency of emergency drills in the WTC. At some point power to whole sections of the building was shut down for an extended period of time, and people were evacuated temporarily.
First of all, we have to assume all this is true. Second, this does not leave enough time to do the job. Rigging a much smaller building for destruction may often take MONTHS. Third, you cannot simply put the explosives in and then blow the thing up. Holes have to be drilled, walls need to be knocked out, etc. People would notice.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Why a plane crash? Why not truck bombs? Didn't they try to bomb the basment once before and it didn't work? And wasn't a certain FBI agent ordered to stand down, and let the attack happen in that case, and didn't he even manage to get this order recorded to tape???
Oh I am sure some conspiracy writer SAID the FBI was given the order to stand down, and people not having remembered most of the coverage naturally assume this actually happened. However, how hard would it be to just blow the thing up and say, "Hey, they got a lot more explosives this time!!!" ? In short, if it is somehow unbelievable that planes crashing into buildings could lead to their total destruction, WHY WOULDN'T THE CONSPIRATORS THINK OF THAT?

The fact is that if 9-11 is some kind of conspiracy it would be the most elaborate one to date, involving hundreds of people if not more. Somehow, none of them squeal.


Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
anyway like love said, the psychological impact is the biggest wave to emanate from this castrophe, regardless of preplanning or not...we all grabbed out flags and ran off to war...
Yeah Love also thinks that the government wants us to fear airplanes for some reason. Many people did the same in the beginning of Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc. What is your point?
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero 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 30th December 2005, 01:17 AM   #309
valis
Muse
 
valis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!

OMG I just realised I haven't been to New York since before 911!!!!!

How can I know if it really happened?
__________________
Everybody knows freedom, it's living inside your head.
Everybody knows Jesus, you'll meet him when you are dead.

A song, by those guys...
valis 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 30th December 2005, 01:20 AM   #310
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Quote:
Sorry but in the real world, lots of things LOOK like other things. A building collapse is going to look relatively the same regardless of whether it collapsed due to explosives or other causes. Do you know why? Because EXPLOSIVES ARE USED TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Thus what you are seeing in a controlled demolition is a building collapsing, not a building being destroyed by explosives.

What are the notable differences? THE EXPLOSIONS ARE visible from the outside.
So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.



Quote:
No, there are none.
yes there are plenty of alternate timelines, you had to have seen them.



Quote:
First of all, we have to assume all this is true. Second, this does not leave enough time to do the job. Rigging a much smaller building for destruction may often take MONTHS. Third, you cannot simply put the explosives in and then blow the thing up. Holes have to be drilled, walls need to be knocked out, etc. People would notice.
In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

Quote:
Oh I am sure some conspiracy writer SAID the FBI was given the order to stand down, and people not having remembered most of the coverage naturally assume this actually happened.
they sure did, I think you are refering to alex jones, who makes a living selling his version of the truth based on actual documentation(it's how he has any credibility at all).


Quote:
However, how hard would it be to just blow the thing up and say, "Hey, they got a lot more explosives this time!!!" ? In short, if it is somehow unbelievable that planes crashing into buildings could lead to their total destruction, WHY WOULDN'T THE CONSPIRATORS THINK OF THAT?
well then they would have to explain how after having one bombing in this fashion, nothing was done in the wake of it, and how they were able to get in and set that many explosives up in the first place.

why didn't the conspirators think about people questioning the use of planes?
why are you asking this? there were no conspirators. the planes were hijacked, they were flown into the buildings...

the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable. it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more. it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

Quote:
The fact is that if 9-11 is some kind of conspiracy it would be the most elaborate one to date, involving hundreds of people if not more. Somehow, none of them squeal.
not really, the official story is just as crazy. compare...

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election, and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks. this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease, all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind. Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field defying all known countermeasures, due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI, as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks. Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.


.
thesyntaxera 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 30th December 2005, 02:08 AM   #311
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.
If all it takes is the cornerstone, then why wouldn't crashing an aeroplane be enough?

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
well then they would have to explain how after having one bombing in this fashion, nothing was done in the wake of it, and how they were able to get in and set that many explosives up in the first place.
Are you saying the people pushing the CT angle should show how that much explosives were able to be put in place?

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable.
Are you distinguishing between the Bin Laden family and Osama Bin Laden? I think you will find the US government had become estranged with Osama over the years.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more.
How so, given the need to keep it hushed up from everyone, the sheer volume of explosives needed, the careful arrangement required and the need to keep it hidden from the people whose job it was to know what was in the WTC and why. I am thinking of security, maintenance, janitors, owners, lessees etc.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.
Surely, it would be harder to keep a plot to place and detonate explosives hushed up than a plot to hijack and crash planes? If true, then not only did the conspiracy have to keep the preperations for the covering hijacks hushed up, they also had to keep the preperations for the bombings hushed up.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
not really, the official story is just as crazy. compare...

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election,
Bush had only won the election in Nov 2000, that is not a large window of opportunity given we know the plans and training for the hijacking part of the operation was already underway before the election.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks.
They didn't do a very good job of the cover up, given that most, if not all the links were already in the public domain well before 911.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease,
But didn't you say earlier today that 911 was all about installing fear in the population, it can not work both ways.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind.
And yet, Bush was re elected along with fellow Republicans in other state and federal and local elections and Republican promoted referendum have also passed. It seems the American public accepts the agenda.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.
Going so far as to wage a seriously 19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field[/quote]

They had more than 19 conspirators.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
defying all known countermeasures,
As has been pointed out, most of the countermeasures were aimed against truck bombs on the ground and, in the air, the hijacking of planes for political purposes. This attack caught the agencies by surprise.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI,
People mess up. Pearl Harbour and any number of other attacks in the world wars testify to this. It is only in conspiracy theories that the authorities are omnipotent.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks.
How many wargames do you think they should be allowed to perform at any one time?

The number of wargames may be confusing to you, but it is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. I think you would find the same number of wargames taking place at any one point in time. The reason you don't see any mention of them is that they tend to be either secret or so routine as to be not worth mentioning. It is only after a significant event that people take any notice of them.

Think about this:

Soldiers who aren't actually fighting a war tend to be practicing. It keeps them out of trouble and gives them practice.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.
I don't see the point of this statement. Surely it makes sense to hide out in rough terrain that is impenitrable but controlled by groups who support your aims? Is it also crazy to think that those local groups would also tend to know their way around those same areas?


.
gtc 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 30th December 2005, 04:41 AM   #312
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
You are correct, and should I be at all surprised it took until page 8 for you genius' to finally grasp such a simple concept?
Most posters here have a very good idea what "deductive" and "inductive" actually mean. So if you are going to make up your own definitions for these words it's not surprising nobody understands you, and it's your own fault. You might as well go to a science forum and start a thread where you use your own definitions of "joule" and "coulomb".

Quote:
My point, to state it for the board again, is that because a deductive investigation wasn't done..ie they didn't disprove all other possibilities, CT is allowed to thrive.

thats why I asked, why not 1 photo of a plane hitting the pentagon, why not release the sealed photo's...etc...
What, they haven't released any footage of a major military asset taking a hit, showing in detail how the building is structured and what defences are in place against such impacts? I cannot think of any possible legitimate reason for the US government to keep that kind of information secret, can you?

Quote:
I don't suppose the civillian casualty figures came up while you were frantically trying to locate the exact budget for the NIST investigation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is at odds with us, because of the people in question, and your too busy trying to prove there isn't a NWO to notice that there is a power elite messing things up for everyone.
The Politics forum here has had any number of relatively intelligent discussions of just these issues. The reason we are talking about 9/11 kookery in this particular thread is that you and your sock brought it up, see?

Quote:
meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.
Here's news: not everybody on the internet is necessarily posting from within the borders of the USA.

I, for example, am an Australian citizen posting from Australia.
Kevin_Lowe 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 30th December 2005, 06:43 AM   #313
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,635
Originally Posted by love View Post
That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.
If you are talking about Romero, he never claimed the WTC was brought down with explosives. He merely said that the collapse resembled one. He's royally ticked off at having been misquoted as claiming otherwise

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=4&c=y

Quote:
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
So there you have it.

Quote:
I thought that was fishy.
Of course, the Sinister Intelligence Agency is always to blame, rather than the sloppy, inept, prejudicial, imcompetent, self-serving reporting of the CT crowd.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 30th December 2005, 06:45 AM   #314
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,635
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.
So you still think steel doesn't weaken when heated. Such intellectual cowardice from you.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 30th December 2005, 08:32 AM   #315
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by valis View Post
OMG I just realised I haven't been to New York since before 911!!!!!

How can I know if it really happened?
The conspiracy is bigger than that. The fact is that not only did 9-11 never happen, but that the appearance of 9-11 was cooked up to cover the fact that the World Trade Center was never built at all! The Rockerfellers pocketed the construction funds, less enough money to make some plywood cutouts to convince rubes like you that the buildings were there. The mainstream media was in on the conspiracy of course, but now with the age of blogging upon us it was only a matter of time before some truth-seeker wanted to go to the "top" of the "buildings." So they had to come down. That's why only 200 beams were examined -- that's all there were to support the plywood mockups.
Manny 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 30th December 2005, 10:49 AM   #316
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.
They DID explain how the fall started. Second, if you look at what is left, you can see the "feet" seem to still be there.




Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.
So now you are a demolitions expert?


Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
they sure did, I think you are refering to alex jones, who makes a living selling his version of the truth based on actual documentation(it's how he has any credibility at all).
What documentation?



Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
why didn't the conspirators think about people questioning the use of planes?
why are you asking this? there were no conspirators. the planes were hijacked, they were flown into the buildings...
Now you're being immature, pretending that you aren't advocating a theory.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable. it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more. it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.
So they can engineer massive terrorist attacks that look like real ones, but Bill Clinton can't hide oral sex in the Oval Office. Sure.


Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election, and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks.

Our government has been doing this for years, the connections are not as solid as you think, thus this proves nothing.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease, all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind. Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.
How does that prove they were behind the attack?

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field defying all known countermeasures, due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI, as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks.
Again, get your facts straight. First, they were not under the command of Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Al Qaeda cells could pull off the Cole and Embassy bombings, as well as the one at Khobar towers, is it not possible that they could pull off hijackings, something that has been done by numerous terrorists many times since the end of WWII?

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.
Believed by people that known little of Bin Laden, yes. Bin Laden is not the operational head of Al Qaeda, and probably never was. He is a financer and spokesman, and little else.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero 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 30th December 2005, 10:56 AM   #317
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet.
But that is exactly what your sources are stating. The building was wired top to bottom, every floor. (If there's some way of linking to a direct spot on a page, I have no idea what it is.) From here:

"the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall."

"The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well [slicing steel into manageable lengths]. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”

"Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”

For the life of me, I still can't figure out how molten steel is a sign of explosives. Their arguments make no sense.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 30th December 2005, 11:50 AM   #318
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Quote:
They DID explain how the fall started. Second, if you look at what is left, you can see the "feet" seem to still be there.
They did? Yeah, you mentioned that, planes hit the building...right...fires....gotcha, official mouthpiece. Those feet you are talking about could be anything, namely a pile of rubble, so your assertion that the whole bottom of the building must be demolished is wrong.



Quote:
So now you are a demolitions expert?
Is that what I said? Maybe the problem here is that the words say one thing, and when you read they mean another.


Quote:
What documentation?
You tell me, oh ye investigator. I would assume if you are interested in debunking guys like that you would check to see if they have sources...he claims that all of his material is backed up by official documentation "110%" which I assume to mean, that if I were to look into his kooky claims I might actually find the documentation he is talking about.



Quote:
Now you're being immature, pretending that you aren't advocating a theory.
ha, I am advocating nothing, except a proper investigation.


Quote:
So they can engineer massive terrorist attacks that look like real ones, but Bill Clinton can't hide oral sex in the Oval Office. Sure.
Once more, they didn't engineer anything, as far as I can tell they knew something was going to happen and let it, which to me is just as bad. Bill Clinton was the subject of a Right Wing smear campaign, or didn't you know that?

Quote:
Our government has been doing this for years, the connections are not as solid as you think, thus this proves nothing.
I know, all too well. And the connections in this case are air tight, you giving a one sentence dismissal isn't going to change that....

Quote:
How does that prove they were behind the attack?
again no one here said they were behind it, although the popular opinion in CT circles is that they are, and to remind you, NOTHING is being PROVED here. Not by you or me. All it does do is show who directly benefited from the political football this event became.

Quote:
Again, get your facts straight. First, they were not under the command of Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Al Qaeda cells could pull off the Cole and Embassy bombings, as well as the one at Khobar towers, is it not possible that they could pull off hijackings, something that has been done by numerous terrorists many times since the end of WWII?
My facts straight? Excuse me? If Osama bin Laden is not the one most directly responsible for this then who is? Your contradicting yourself here. The Cole bombing was a boat that ran up along side and exploded, the us embassy was a truck bomb, as well as the Khobar towers, none of those are nearly as complex as this, 4 highjackings and years of planning??? Sure they could highjack them, but how many highjackers went to flight school?

Another thing that has stuck with me is that the fuel burning being the cause for the collapse was talked about by bin Laden in his supposed confession, where he stated that he knew the fuel would bring the towers down in the exact way they fell....however...most experts contend that it was a freak occurrance that shouldn't have happened even though it did.

Quote:
Believed by people that known little of Bin Laden, yes. Bin Laden is not the operational head of Al Qaeda, and probably never was. He is a financer and spokesman, and little else.
And you know this how? So all the mujahadeen bull, and training by the cia never happened either then did it? The funny thing is that it did, and he was, although most likely not now....most likely dead....

Quote:
For the life of me, I still can't figure out how molten steel is a sign of explosives. Their arguments make no sense.
Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly. Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.

quick story, my ladyfriends dad tore down an old barn. after all the good pieces of wood were taken out, he burned the rest in three large fire pits. The whole process took a month of spare time. After two weeks there was about 3 feet of ash in the bottom. Sometime later, he threw some more wood in the fire pits and went inside to eat. While eating we started to smell smoke. We go outside to find three fires smoldering. It turns out that the fire had never gone completely out, despite the rain, and despite being extinguished with water from a hose...those fires burned for two weeks on their own.
thesyntaxera 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 30th December 2005, 12:24 PM   #319
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly.
And why would one use it, given that shaped charges are so much more precise and instantaneous?

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.
So much for it being signs explosives were used.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
quick story, my ladyfriends dad tore down an old barn. after all the good pieces of wood were taken out, he burned the rest in three large fire pits. The whole process took a month of spare time. After two weeks there was about 3 feet of ash in the bottom. Sometime later, he threw some more wood in the fire pits and went inside to eat. While eating we started to smell smoke. We go outside to find three fires smoldering. It turns out that the fire had never gone completely out, despite the rain, and despite being extinguished with water from a hose...those fires burned for two weeks on their own.
I learned this from Smokey the Bear some years ago. And it proves...?
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny 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 30th December 2005, 12:53 PM   #320
azazal
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
 
azazal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 410
Wow, just finished reading the 8 pages, and my brain hurts.

But here is something I've always wondered, CTs use the accounts of eye witnesses to show proof of demolition charges - Fire fighters hearing multiple explosions, people that were fleeing the buildings seeing molten steel, etc. Now granted I am sure these people are experts in their fields. I'm sure that the banker, lawyers, and financial gurus that were in the area on 9/11 are/were at the forefront of their respective fields. And one cannot question the bravery and dedication of the firefighters and police that were there that day; all train professionals in their jobs. But how many of these eyewitnesses were also trained in the use and execution of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy?

Yet, when experts in the fields of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy examine the evidence, and come to the overwhelming conclusion that no demolitions were used. The CT answer is always - they canít be believed, because theyíre part of the government cover-up.

So how is it that the people who work in the fields daily as their trained profession are wrong, and people under the most extreme duress possible making snap judgments about subjects that they have little or no training on, are correct?

Or am I just trying to be too logical?






PS - hope this doesnít double post, the internet connection at work is acting screwy
azazal 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 04:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.