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 loose change , part 1 , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 15th March 2006, 02:41 PM   #81
JPK
Graduate Poster
 
JPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,749
Quote:
Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?
Quote:
I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true.
Oh I see, personal experience.
JPK
__________________
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier... A belief's a dangerous thing. People die for it. People kill for it."
Rufus, the 13th apostle, Dogma
"You can't prove air." Sylvia Browne
John Kardel
JPK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 02:47 PM   #82
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by MWare View Post
I know I should watch this, if only so I can respond if somebody was to bring it up in conversation, but I do have a bit of a temper and this is an event I'm still trying to deal with. I fear if I watch it I will have a very unhealthy reaction.
Everyone with a conscience was and is angry over what transpired on 9/11. It represented a major paradigm shift in this country, and the world. It has created the pretext for an Orwellian police state here in the US, and an unprecedented US policy of pre-emptive war.

That's why it's crucial that we know the truth about exactly what happend. 9/11 research which contradicts the official conspiracy theory cannot rightfully be construed as disrespectful, because the fate of the nation and perhaps the world hangs in the balance.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:04 PM   #83
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,708
Okay. One word to debunk all the 9/11 conspiracy theories:


Moussaoui
Luke T. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:07 PM   #84
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Luke T. View Post
I don't understand the "free fall" problem.

But I do have some ideas about the "secondary explosions".

The film makes a big deal out of free fall, saying it would take 10 seconds for something to free fall that distance.
It's a big deal because if we are to accept the pancake theory as offered by the 9/11 commission, we must believe that there would be virtually no resistance offered by either the floors below, or the 47 load bearing steel columns. This contradicts the laws of physics. In essence, the building should have fallen in a much slower and less symmetrical manner than it did.

Quote:
Later, they start to discuss the secondary explosions in the WTC. And they play a tape recorded on the 36th floor where you hear two explosions, 9 seconds apart.

They then talk about marble panels blown off the lobby by a raging fireball which travelled down the elevator shaft.

The film then says there was no way the fireball was able to burn since the elevator shaft was airtight and therefore had no air for the fire.

But what about the air that was already in the shaft?
The marble panels along with the other lobby evidence and the eyewitness testimony of the firemen who were present are strong evidence of pre-planted explosives. It is infeasible that a raging fireball would travel 80 stories down to inflict the damage seen in the lobby, whether or not the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed.

Quote:

As for the janitor, when he heard the first explosion, he thought it came from the basement. He said the second explosion came from directly overhead.

I would say that when he heard the first explosion, he was not in any state of awareness of something unusual going on and made a guess where the sound originated. Trying to guess at what could make such a noise, he says he thought it was a generator exploding. Since the generators were in the basement that is where he thought the sound came from.

By the time of the second explosion, he was more aware and was able to make a better estimate of the direction of the source.
That would be pure speculation on your part. Rodriguez's testimony was lucid, and he expressed no confusion about the origin of what he heard.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:12 PM   #85
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Try this link:

janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Try this link:

janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Umm... that site supports the BS. And it a horribe analysis. The planes hit the buildings at the 77th and 93rd floor, so both towers would have started to collapse at or below those floors. The towers both collapsed in just under 10 seconds. The building was 417 meters tall. Free fall under gravity takes:
t=(2h/g)^(1/2)

They assume the building fell from the very top when they derive their 9.22 figure. If you calculate from the point where the plane hit the building (i.e. where the collapse actually started) WTC2 would have taken 7.7 seconds to collapse and WTC1 would have taken 8.5 seconds.

Their understanding of momentum is also way off.
Quote:
If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next 10-floor block, Block-A will stop moving, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving. If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses.
All of the momentum would not have been transferred in the collapsing towers scenario, and gravity would have continued to act on both bodies. Think about their example for a couple seconds. If you fall on top of your friend, do you stop at any point in mid-air while your friend falls to the ground? No. You both collapse in a heap.

Welcome to the forum. I hope you posted this link by accident. These people clearly did not pass college physics.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:13 PM   #86
JPK
Graduate Poster
 
JPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,749
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It's a big deal because if we are to accept the pancake theory as offered by the 9/11 commission, we must believe that there would be virtually no resistance offered by either the floors below, or the 47 load bearing steel columns. This contradicts the laws of physics. In essence, the building should have fallen in a much slower and less symmetrical manner than it did.
Would you be kind enough to show your math here? I'm having a problem understanding which physical laws have been violated here?
JPK
__________________
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier... A belief's a dangerous thing. People die for it. People kill for it."
Rufus, the 13th apostle, Dogma
"You can't prove air." Sylvia Browne
John Kardel
JPK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:16 PM   #87
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.
Did you treat these conspiracy theory videos with any skepticism? Obviously not. Almost none of their claims hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:28 PM   #88
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It's a big deal because if we are to accept the pancake theory as offered by the 9/11 commission, we must believe that there would be virtually no resistance offered by either the floors below, or the 47 load bearing steel columns.
Come again? You'd have me believe that ANY kind of steel would slow several 10's of thousands of tons of building (i.e. the top 20-40 floors) traveling at even 5m/s (i.e after the first half second of falling?) Are you familiar by any chance with the equation for momentum?

(in case you've forgotten, it's p=m*v. In this case, 136,077,711 m kg /s. What were you saying again about slowing that down? Maybe you should take some physics courses and get back to us before we continue this discussion.)

ETA While I'm at it, the kenetic energy of the falling floors would be roughly 340 M joules, or roughly the amount of energy released from one ton of TNT.

Last edited by delphi_ote; 15th March 2006 at 05:02 PM.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:28 PM   #89
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
I spent last week arguing this nonsense on another board. The True Believers will never be convinced. They will hold up the word of physicists as the gospel truth over structural engineers. It's really, really astounding. Oh, I was called a Nazi supporter for not believing the conspiracy, which includes the 9/11 Commission, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry BTW. Really, truly, unbelievably nuts. And it's very disturbing to find so many people so bereft of the ability to think critically about this issue, if you've ever needed proof of the failure of public education in this country, here it is.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:34 PM   #90
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
BTW, the Popular Mechanics story (already linked to) on this is very good, but this site is one I found even better as it is far more complete in debunking many of the nonsense theories that came about after the Popular Mechanics story was printed. It's a treasure trove of info!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:36 PM   #91
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I spent last week arguing this nonsense on another board. The True Believers will never be convinced. They will hold up the word of physicists as the gospel truth over structural engineers. It's really, really astounding. Oh, I was called a Nazi supporter for not believing the conspiracy, which includes the 9/11 Commission, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry BTW. Really, truly, unbelievably nuts. And it's very disturbing to find so many people so bereft of the ability to think critically about this issue, if you've ever needed proof of the failure of public education in this country, here it is.
First off, thanks for arguing. The die hard believers may not be convinced, but I know I've changed at least one person's mind.

I couldn't agree with you more on the failure of our public education system. Maybe showing my work will help some people along with their physics.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:47 PM   #92
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity?
It's true that I prejudged this video before watching it. But I didn't prejudge my assessment of the story behind 9/11 before looking into it and arguing about it. My bias against this video is based on the high likelihood that it repackages assertions and insinuations that I've already heard many times.

Quote:
I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.
I have no doubt that there are gaps and errors in the 9/11 Commission's official version of events. I have deep doubts about how large these gaps and errors are, and about many of the assertions and implications produced by all these 9/11 Truth groups and websites and amateur documentary producers.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:47 PM   #93
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false.
Looks like we can add snopes.com to the short list including the 9/11 commission for which we can suspend our "skepticism".

First of all, I personally recall watching this news being reported on CNBC, and then waiting for a follow-up which never occurred. It's as if the story just completely vanished. One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of lies, so snopes.com quoting from their "report" doesn't exactly constitute a debunking of the original claim. Specifically, I'd like to know more details about the invididuals involved and their identities. I'd like details of the trades themselves including dates and times cross-referenced with other trades they may have made within the period. The original reports indicated that these anomalous trades weren't cashed out. Why would these supposedly innocent investors not realize their good fortune? I would also be curious to see a statistical analysis regarding the frequency of such trades at such high multiples of their average daily volume. As an interesting aside, the trades were made through broker Alex Brown, a subsidary of Deutsche Bank, formerly chaired by Buzzy Krongard. You may have heard of Krongard, he was until fairly recently the third ranking CIA executive who thinks we should let boogeyman Osama Bin Laden stay free:

www-timesonline-co-uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html

Second, I think this issue is a red herring, from my point of view. Arab Terrorists complicit in the official 9/11 conspiracy are just as capable of making option trades and profiting by their prescience as any would-be US government conspirator.

I apologize for the broken links, the editor restricts new users from sharing URLs (apparently I can't even quote them).
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:54 PM   #94
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by manny View Post
I don't get how anyone gets past that argument. With the moon landing, a true CTer can at least say, "yeah, but all those people worked for the government or its contractors-- they were in on it, too!" Here, we're talking about hundreds or thousands of people who didn't work for the government (or if they did, not for the conspirators -- the worked for the city government, for example). And many of them died. How could one sneak explosive charges, say, past the building staff who subsequently died because they stayed in the buildings after the attacks to help people escape?
The argument is irrelevant in the context of the evidence. Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around. The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition. Speculation on whether or not X number of people can keep a secret, whether or not they were compartmentalized, or whether they would even be believed should they attempt to blow the whistle isn't warranted.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 03:58 PM   #95
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Luke T. View Post
And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack.
No, that certainly does not look like a 16 foot hole at all, I agree. It looks like a completely different photo, one taken after the roof of the pentagon collapsed by most accounts about a half-hour after the impact.

Last edited by Alek; 15th March 2006 at 04:01 PM.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:03 PM   #96
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Alek.

Are you just trying to keep this ball of BS rolling, or are you actually going to respond to my previous posts? Your physics is absolutely wrong. Be a man and admit it.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:04 PM   #97
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around. The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition.
This evidence you speak of is highly questionable, to say the least. Not to mention the contra-evidence that suggests otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the face of such dubious assertions, it's appropriate to apply Occam's Razor and conclude that the more obvious explanation--the damage caused by the planes' impact--was responsible for the collapses.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:19 PM   #98
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
The argument is irrelevant in the context of the evidence. Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around. The physical and other evidence indicate a controlled demolition. Speculation on whether or not X number of people can keep a secret, whether or not they were compartmentalized, or whether they would even be believed should they attempt to blow the whistle isn't warranted.
Your conspiracy theory has a very big problem, and until you address it there's no point in even getting to the other stuff. There have been many articles written in engineering journals (by engineers who are not working for the US gov't, and in fact many are foreigners) more than adequately explaining how the WTC towers failed and collapsed. None required anything more than the planes hitting them and the fires they caused. Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

Do you see the problem here?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:28 PM   #99
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
One of the premises behind the accusations of people like me is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") is full of lies...
I guess if you're going to accuse people of thousands of murders with no evidence, calling people liars with no evidence isn't really a big deal.

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Why would these supposedly innocent investors not realize their good fortune?
Better question: why would someone who knew it was all going to happen not cash out their investment immediately, especially knowing the markets would be closed soon for several days? Or would that be too obvious? If that's too obvious, why wouldn't this whole scam be too obvious?
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:31 PM   #100
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Researchers, scientists, skeptics, and reasonable people in general should attempt to fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around.
Yet clearly that is what you're doing with this conspiracy theory. You're not skeptical at all. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

"Free-fall" Get real.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:33 PM   #101
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.
And their elementary physics can be debunked by a Computer Science graduate student with just one year of calculus-based college physics.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 04:34 PM   #102
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
First of all, I personally recall watching this news being reported on CNBC, and then waiting for a follow-up which never occurred. It's as if the story just completely vanished.
Perhaps because the story was a dead-end? Thousands of skilled investigative reporters out there, and none has found anything more than a suspicious coincidence. Hmmm...
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:05 PM   #103
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
I might as well drop this in another post, since I was doing the calculations.

The kenetic energy of the top 20-40 floors falling at 5m/s (I approximated their weight at 30k tons) is rougly equal to the energy released by blowing up a ton of TNT (give or take.)
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:06 PM   #104
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Umm... that site supports the BS. And it a horribe analysis. The planes hit the buildings at the 77th and 93rd floor, so both towers would have started to collapse at or below those floors. The towers both collapsed in just under 10 seconds. The building was 417 meters tall. Free fall under gravity takes:
t=(2h/g)^(1/2)
My mistake. I thought you wanted a site that debunks the myth that a modern steel structure could turn to jelly and collapse symmetrically at a free fall rate due to kerosene fires. Sorry, can't help you there.

Quote:

They assume the building fell from the very top when they derive their 9.22 figure. If you calculate from the point where the plane hit the building (i.e. where the collapse actually started) WTC2 would have taken 7.7 seconds to collapse and WTC1 would have taken 8.5 seconds.

Their understanding of momentum is also way off.

All of the momentum would not have been transferred in the collapsing towers scenario, and gravity would have continued to act on both bodies. Think about their example for a couple seconds. If you fall on top of your friend, do you stop at any point in mid-air while your friend falls to the ground? No. You both collapse in a heap.
I haven't fallen on any of my friends from height, but I understand the analogy. I'm no physicist, but it seems you have misrepresented Mrs. Wood (the owner of that research). She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".

Quote:

Welcome to the forum. I hope you posted this link by accident. These people clearly did not pass college physics.
Thanks. I didn't post the link by accident. I posted it in sarcastic response to your slanted and biased request for a link to convince your roommate of what you were apparently unable to convince him of yourself. It's somewhat miraculous how you've gone from initiate to adept-physicist on the free fall subject in the span of one thread. I'm not convinced either.

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:10 PM   #105
Jon.
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
My mistake. I thought you wanted a site that debunks the myth that a modern steel structure could turn to jelly and collapse symmetrically at a free fall rate due to kerosene fires. Sorry, can't help you there.
What makes you think the steel would have to turn to jelly?

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I haven't fallen on any of my friends from height, but I understand the analogy. I'm no physicist, but it seems you have misrepresented Mrs. Wood (the owner of that research). She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".
If it's moving down, and it stops moving, then it would seem to me that gravity has somehow ceased to act upon it.

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Thanks. I didn't post the link by accident. I posted it in sarcastic response to your slanted and biased request for a link to convince your roommate of what you were apparently unable to convince him of yourself. It's somewhat miraculous how you've gone from initiate to adept-physicist on the free fall subject in the span of one thread. I'm not convinced either.

Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.
Perhaps if you want her help in bolstering the arguments that you are trying to present here, you could invite her to come here.
Jon. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:21 PM   #106
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Did you treat these conspiracy theory videos with any skepticism? Obviously not. Almost none of their claims hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
There is certainly a lot of disinformation regarding 9/11 out there, this much is certain. That it will be negatively associated with much more compelling evidence, and serve to discredit the truth movement in general is even more certain. I like to think of myself as skeptical across the board, I'm interested in the truth, and I've gotten past the emotional barrier which doesn't want to accept the most disturbing truths.

It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. You have a vested interest in the status quo. Most people do. It's easier that way, the path of least resistance. It's easier to go along with the monolithic media and assume that Bin Laden was responsible even when there is a mountain of evidence which suggests otherwise.

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Unknown

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic. I suffer from almost the same problem, but in reverse.

I find it difficult to believe virtually anything the government or media say anymore.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:25 PM   #107
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Jon. View Post
In what specifics do you say the official theory does not add up?
A lot of things don't add up. What stands out prominently in my mind, is the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. To save myself keystrokes, just visit wtc7.net and watch the video and view the evidence.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:27 PM   #108
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.
Let's see who these folks are...







Quote:
Kevin Barrett (FM)
Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

Not a structural engineer.
Quote:
Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)
Attorney at Law


Not a structural engineer.

Quote:
Tracy Blevins (FM)
Bioengineering, Rice University



Not a structural engineer.
Quote:
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions



Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul

Not a structural engineer.

Quote:
Michiel Brumsen (FM)
Philosophy, Engineering ethics

Not a structural engineer.
Quote:
Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years


Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
William A. Cook (FM)
Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy"

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Richard Curtis (FM)
Philosophy, Seattle University

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Lloyd DeMause (FM)
Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Alexander L. Dent (FM)
Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
A. K. Dewdney (FM)
Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Albert Dragstedt (FM)
Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Ted Elden (FM)
Architect, Communicator

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
James H. Fetzer (FM)
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Marcus Ford (FM)
Humanities, NAU

Not a structural engineer.





Quote:
Ruth Frankenberg (FM)
American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books

Not a structural engineer.

Quote:
etc etc etc
Not a structural engineer in the bunch! I wonder why that is?

You know, I've been in the construction (remodeling/rehabs) industry for over 20 years, and never once did the Building Dept. tell me to have a Physicist, Philosopher, Psychologist, Professor of Literature, Professor of Humanities, Mathematician, Biologist, Air Force pilot, Historian, or Ethicist sign off on an architectural drawing or building plan in order to draw a permit... they seem to be partial to structural engineers for some reason.

I bet a historian would do it cheaper though, if only they could!





__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 15th March 2006 at 05:50 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:28 PM   #109
Jon.
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
There is certainly a lot of disinformation regarding 9/11 out there, this much is certain. That it will be negatively associated with much more compelling evidence, and serve to discredit the truth movement in general is even more certain. I like to think of myself as skeptical across the board, I'm interested in the truth, and I've gotten past the emotional barrier which doesn't want to accept the most disturbing truths.

It's apparent that the emotional cost of the realization that elements in your government were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is too high for you. You have a vested interest in the status quo. Most people do. It's easier that way, the path of least resistance. It's easier to go along with the monolithic media and assume that Bin Laden was responsible even when there is a mountain of evidence which suggests otherwise.

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." - Unknown

It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic. I suffer from almost the same problem, but in reverse.

I find it difficult to believe virtually anything the government or media say anymore.
(emphasis added)

What "mountain of evidence"? Everything you refer to has been effectively debunked.

You know, you sound just like the fundies with their anti-evolution rants. Make the following substitutions:

Evolution = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Scientists = government
Creationism/ID = 9/11 conspiracy theory

There you have it. The tactics are the same. It's called spaghetti-chucking. Throw a bunch of "facts" out there and as soon as people start to show that they are not true, start waving your hands about the "mountain of evidence" and accuse the fact-checkers of being brainwashed.

Yawn. Old hat.
Jon. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:29 PM   #110
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
She never claimed gravity would not continue to act on both bodies, she asserted that "Block-A will stop moving".
In mid-air? You really believe that?

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Perhaps you can take it up directly with the owner of that research. You can find her at scholarsfor911truth.org, Judy Wood Ph.D. I would be sincerely interested in reading that thread.
Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady.
Quote:
Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:30 PM   #111
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It is this fear that you have which clouds your objectivity, and which makes you merely a selective skeptic.
Gag! Only your tenth post, and you've dropped the argument and resorted to ad hominem.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:37 PM   #112
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2.

I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true.
Stinnett's tactis in producing 'evidence' were deliberately deceptive. Many historians and code breaker phreaks rightly called him on his deliberate ommissions and deciets. It got so bad for Stinnett he had to close the message board he had set up when the questions got too hot.

Stinnett's basic tactic was to flood his book with footnotes to make it seem like there was genuine hard research involved. In fact, those who looked at the notes would find Stinnett was being deceptive. Several times declaring that the US should have been aware of the attack based on messages that were not finally translated until 1945-46, as well as making up stuff that simply didn't happen. It was easy to check, Stinnett just hoped nobody would.
__________________
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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:39 PM   #113
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Jon. View Post
Evolution = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Scientists = government
Creationism/ID = 9/11 conspiracy theory
Alternately:

Holocaust = 9/11 was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack
Jews = government
Holocaust denial = 9/11 conspiracy theory
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:43 PM   #114
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
In mid-air? You really believe that?


Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady.
Is it this Judy Wood? Specializes in the mechanical properties of human teeth?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:49 PM   #115
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Her students certainly think she's a very interesting lady.
My favorite:
Quote:
Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:54 PM   #116
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Come again? You'd have me believe that ANY kind of steel would slow several 10's of thousands of tons of building (i.e. the top 20-40 floors) traveling at even 5m/s (i.e after the first half second of falling?) Are you familiar by any chance with the equation for momentum?

(in case you've forgotten, it's p=m*v. In this case, 136,077,711 m kg /s. What were you saying again about slowing that down? Maybe you should take some physics courses and get back to us before we continue this discussion.)

ETA While I'm at it, the kenetic energy of the falling floors would be roughly 340 M joules, or roughly the amount of energy released from one ton of TNT.
Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend? Am I to believe that the 47 core steel columns all failed simultaneously enabling a symmetrical collapse at virtual free fall speed? Perhaps you could answer this question posed by someone on another forum, I think it's a reasonable question:

"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "

While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?

www-physics-byu-edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm not disputing the law of momentum. I'm disputing your implicit assumption that the conditions existed in order to send several tens of thousands of tons of steel moving at 5 meters/sec in one instant, as if a magic carpet had been pulled out from beneath it.

I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.

Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 05:59 PM   #117
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Is it this Judy Wood? Specializes in the mechanical properties of human teeth?
One and the same. I'm sending an e-mail to the president of Clemson right now.

Quote:
Dr. Barker,

I am a concerned graduate computer science student at the University of Central Florida writing to make sure you were aware of the behavior of Professor Judy Wood.

According to the organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://scholarsfor911truth.org/) Professor Wood writes the articles located at this site: janedoe0911.tripod.com

Many of the claims on this website are patently false, particularly some of the elementary physics presented. Dr. Wood seems reluctant to publish her name and profession directly on the website, but openly uses them to promote the website (as you can see clearly in this press release from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200603.../prweb352979_1 and on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.)

It seems unethical that she would use her PhD and Professor of Mechanical Engineering status to promote her writings, but not open said writings to proper peer review by hiding her name entirely on the actual documents. It also seems dishonest that she would claim to be a full professor when she is currently an assistant professor.

Thank you for your time,
Ryan Cunningham
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 06:04 PM   #118
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend?
All it takes is one floor falling on the one below it to start the chain reaction. According to every single structural engineer who has studied it, this is what happened.

Quote:
"Could the airliner impact, fuel combustion, and subsequent fires have weakened both the floor trusts and the central core sufficiently to initiate a collapse that would proceed in such rapidity that the resistance of the portions of the building below the failure were inconsequential? "
Yes, according to every single report by structural engineers that have studied it.

Quote:
While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?
Yes, he's not a structural engineer and his opinion on the failure of a building is so far out of his discipline as to make his thoughts on the matter as relevant as the homeless guy's living under the I-94 overpass. He has some interesting theories too...

Quote:
I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower.
Your statement is simply not true. WTC 7 was extensively damaged, every floor was on fire, and it had a 20-story hole ripped in it by falling debris.

Quote:
Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.
Were there? I don't suppose you can confirm this...

Quote:
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
That berg isn't made out of ice, it's just a big pile of (rule 8).
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 15th March 2006 at 06:08 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 06:10 PM   #119
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Your conspiracy theory has a very big problem, and until you address it there's no point in even getting to the other stuff. There have been many articles written in engineering journals (by engineers who are not working for the US gov't, and in fact many are foreigners) more than adequately explaining how the WTC towers failed and collapsed. None required anything more than the planes hitting them and the fires they caused. Every single person who claims the planes and resulting fires could not have brought down the towers is not a structural engineer, and have not submitted any articles to engineering journals. Instead, they write books and produce movies hoping to turn a profit on this calamity.

Do you see the problem here?
Are you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit? Because if you want to get into cui bono, then why don't you calculate the profits of the panopticon security state that's being created here, for the "homeland". Why don't you calculate the profits of war, and oil?

Do you think it's objective to state that "Every single person" making claims counter to the 9/11 commission is not a structural engineer? Are you in fact aware of the credentials of every single person who has made such claims, and have you in fact read every engineering journal? Are you supposed to pass for a skeptic? I suppose all swans are white.

I do see the problem. When one is incapable of attacking the message, one attacks the messenger. We live in a highly specialized world, one which dictates that we delegate an inordinate amount of trust in so-called "experts", experts which have all too often proven unworthy of that trust.
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2006, 06:13 PM   #120
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
That was a rather tedious use of the fallacy of reverse appeal to authority. Unfortunately, fallacies don't invalidate evidence. Why don't you stick to the evidence?
Alek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 07:46 AM.
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.