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.
Reply
Old 26th April 2009, 02:10 PM   #41
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
To help you with your own terminology, any fusion of LIHOP and MIHOP is MIHOP by definition, an unnecessarily complicated one. Think about it.

...

I don't doubt it. One could also say that if you believe the Gov't could be involved ...etc, then it's not that far of a stretch to say that Bigfoot pilots a UFO powered by Original Coke.
Firstly, none of the terminology is my own. I don't believe that any explanation of 9/11 considered a conspiracy theory, could be adequately categorized as LIHOP or MIHOP. Can 'they' not make it happen, and also let it happen?

There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. Re-reading your comment actually makes me question whether you re-read it or not. It is a little ridiculous. You won't need to make jokes to get your point across with me.

Thanks for the reply!
ImANiceGuy 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 26th April 2009, 02:43 PM   #42
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
...
Also, can anyone answer a question with regards to the Put Call options trading at higher than usual volume? Can someone knowledged on this subject present themselves for a query?
Do you trade stocks? If you do something simple wrong they are all over you! Records and a trail are the problem stock stuff; they catch simple stuff, they catch the big stuff. If some bad guys did the stock stuff they would have been caught in days. Research is the key to stop repeating the dirt dumb ideas of 911Truth.

So far not one thing 911Truth has is past the pure stupid opinion, hearsay, lie, and false information; backed up with zero evidence.


Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
...
There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. ...
Thanks for the reply!
Not for 911Truth. A machine powered by classic coke, not a soda machine. Did you read...
Quote:
a UFO powered by Original Coke.
Best evidence for a 911Truth believer is hearsay, what the idiot experts in 911Truth say; their best evidence is "no evidence" and pure belief in delusions made up for them by other people; a no need to think it up for yourself. An easy road to stupid idea on 911 - 911Truth.

Last edited by beachnut; 26th April 2009 at 02:52 PM.
beachnut 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 26th April 2009, 03:39 PM   #43
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
....Sigh.

Beachnut, do you think it's the same type of stretch of imagination? One isn't a little more of a stretch than the other?

All I'm trying to say is it is incorrect to label every member of alternate theory as "911Truth". Let each member speak for themselves.

I don't immediately believe you think that hydrogen generated from water vapor fueled the fires of WTC7, but a Skeptic does......see what I'm saying?
ImANiceGuy 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 26th April 2009, 03:45 PM   #44
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,897
You know what this subforum needs? Another troll.
Baylor 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 26th April 2009, 05:11 PM   #45
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
....Sigh.

Beachnut, do you think it's the same type of stretch of imagination? One isn't a little more of a stretch than the other?

All I'm trying to say is it is incorrect to label every member of alternate theory as "911Truth". Let each member speak for themselves.

I don't immediately believe you think that hydrogen generated from water vapor fueled the fires of WTC7, but a Skeptic does......see what I'm saying?
What does hydrogen have to do with the idiotic ideas of 911Truth?

Prove the CIA is behind UBL. Do it, solve the delusions of 911Truth, make them reality and earn a Pulitzer Prize.

911Truth is a big tent; all the nut case ideas from CIA to nukes is 911Truth.

What other failed ideas are you going to recycle to apologize for 911Truth?
beachnut 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 26th April 2009, 06:41 PM   #46
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
The main difference between the two scenarios, as I understand your question at least ImANiceGuy, is one key word between them; namely one has the word "let", as in "it's more than likely to happen without any interference on my part, so I'll just sit back and watch", and the other has the word "make", as in "if I position the pieces just right, what I want to happen will happen, or close enough to it".

One scenario involves direct interference, the other does not. So no, by the standard definition of the words, one cannot "make" it happen and also "let" it happen. It has to be one or the other.

Also, and please forgive me if I sound a tad snippy, but your questions indicate to me that you have never worked in a government agency. Believe me, if you had, you would realize it's not the powerful singular entity it's mostly made out to be; all the different cogs and parts are working at different speeds and in different directions a great deal of the time, and it isn't until cooperation is forced, for lack of a better term, that things begin to work as people think they should. The idea that our government could have been controlling a group of individuals across the pond who have sworn to bring down the Western way of life seems very counterintuitive to me; what would be the purpose of it? Can you explain that to me please?
Sabrina 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 26th April 2009, 07:10 PM   #47
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
....Sigh.

Beachnut, do you think it's the same type of stretch of imagination? One isn't a little more of a stretch than the other?

All I'm trying to say is it is incorrect to label every member of alternate theory as "911Truth". Let each member speak for themselves.

I don't immediately believe you think that hydrogen generated from water vapor fueled the fires of WTC7, but a Skeptic does......see what I'm saying?
ImANiceGuy, are you refering to me?

If so, let me say this. Leftyseargent and Sunstealer both provided evidence that hydrogen can be generated. Sunstealer even showed the chemical process (though I admit I'm taking his word for it) and Lefty pretty much admitted that hydrogen was not a major fuel contributor in the pile.

They backed up their statements and provided reasonable answers.

I'm satisfied. Why aren't you?
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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 26th April 2009, 08:31 PM   #48
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Firstly, none of the terminology is my own. I don't believe that any explanation of 9/11 considered a conspiracy theory, could be adequately categorized as LIHOP or MIHOP. Can 'they' not make it happen, and also let it happen?

There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. Re-reading your comment actually makes me question whether you re-read it or not. It is a little ridiculous. You won't need to make jokes to get your point across with me.

Thanks for the reply!
That is kind of like saying "I caught 14 whales off the wharf" is a much bigger tall tale than "I caught two whales off the wharf". Yes that is true, but they are both RIDICULOUS tall tales.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 April 2009, 09:59 AM   #49
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Mr.Skinny, I was not referring to you, only to Lefty, who, at the time of this post, had yet to respond in a different thread to his claim that hydrogen fueled the WTC7 fires pre-collapse. It was proven that hydrogen can be created by water vapor, and I don't dispute this. I dispute the theory that hydrogen was an accelerent; more so than any other comparable office tower fire.

And the difference between what I suggest and what r.mackey suggests (re:stretches of imagination) and what Johnnyk has aptly described above is simple. It is more like a fisherman saying "I caught two whales off of the wharf" versus "I caught a mermaid off of the wharf." If you are prone to beleive fisherman's tales(we all know the type, you use the word Twoofer), you might buy into a fisherman catching a couple whales, but you would be hard-pressed to believe in a mythical creature. So with that said, the two examples are greatly different stretches of the imagination.

As to the LIHOP vs the MIHOP, I would like first to offer a pre-amble. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and am not an 'apologist for 911Truth'. I only wish to suggest that the two theories could be merged in order for a 911 conspiracy theory to be logistically possible. Enter "smacco's razor" which states that since a simple explanation won't work, it must get more and more complicated in order to succeed. It's all highly suspect and improbable, not very plausible, etc. If a rogue agency were planning 911 for whatever reason, they would need to make it happen; mix 2 cups of thermite, with a teaspoon of remote controlled plane; but would also passively let it happen by ignoring the intel that is predicting an imminent attack. So I guess, after re-reading that sentence, that a LIHOP scenario would actually be a MIHOP, because ommision of action is still an act. Does that make sense?

"The idea that our government could have been controlling a group of individuals across the pond who have sworn to bring down the Western way of life seems very counterintuitive to me; what would be the purpose of it? Can you explain that to me please?" - Sabrina

There are plenty of documented connections throughout the history of the CIA with rogue/terrorist groups. Al-Queda for one, Guerilla groups in South America, the Balkans, etc. This is NOT to say that these groups are completely controlled by the Gov't, which they are not. This is NOT to say that there is a shadowy group pulling the world's puppet strings. CIA assets exist numerously and sometimes famously around the world; they are the Central Intelligence Agency. I think even the most hardcore skeptics would agree with this.

Last edited by ImANiceGuy; 27th April 2009 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Spelling
ImANiceGuy 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 April 2009, 10:51 AM   #50
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Mr.Skinny, I was not referring to you, only to Lefty, who, at the time of this post, had yet to respond in a different thread to his claim that hydrogen fueled the WTC7 fires pre-collapse.
Nobody claims that the generation of hydrogen contributed to the collapse.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl 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 April 2009, 11:40 AM   #51
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Mr.Skinny, I was not referring to you, only to Lefty, who, at the time of this post, had yet to respond in a different thread to his claim that hydrogen fueled the WTC7 fires pre-collapse. It was proven that hydrogen can be created by water vapor, and I don't dispute this. I dispute the theory that hydrogen was an accelerent; more so than any other comparable office tower fire.

And the difference between what I suggest and what r.mackey suggests (re:stretches of imagination) and what Johnnyk has aptly described above is simple. It is more like a fisherman saying "I caught two whales off of the wharf" versus "I caught a mermaid off of the wharf." If you are prone to beleive fisherman's tales(we all know the type, you use the word Twoofer), you might buy into a fisherman catching a couple whales, but you would be hard-pressed to believe in a mythical creature. So with that said, the two examples are greatly different stretches of the imagination.

As to the LIHOP vs the MIHOP, I would like first to offer a pre-amble. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and am not an 'apologist for 911Truth'. I only wish to suggest that the two theories could be merged in order for a 911 conspiracy theory to be logistically possible. Enter "smacco's razor" which states that since a simple explanation won't work, it must get more and more complicated in order to succeed. It's all highly suspect and improbable, not very plausible, etc. If a rogue agency were planning 911 for whatever reason, they would need to make it happen; mix 2 cups of thermite, with a teaspoon of remote controlled plane; but would also passively let it happen by ignoring the intel that is predicting an imminent attack. So I guess, after re-reading that sentence, that a LIHOP scenario would actually be a MIHOP, because ommision of action is still an act. Does that make sense?

"The idea that our government could have been controlling a group of individuals across the pond who have sworn to bring down the Western way of life seems very counterintuitive to me; what would be the purpose of it? Can you explain that to me please?" - Sabrina

There are plenty of documented connections throughout the history of the CIA with rogue/terrorist groups. Al-Queda for one, Guerilla groups in South America, the Balkans, etc. This is NOT to say that these groups are completely controlled by the Gov't, which they are not. This is NOT to say that there is a shadowy group pulling the world's puppet strings. CIA assets exist numerously and sometimes famously around the world; they are the Central Intelligence Agency. I think even the most hardcore skeptics would agree with this.
you might "buy" a fisherman catching 2 whales off a wharf, if you were a layman without any concept of how whales are "caught", or where, but the chances of it occurring are virtually nil...that was my point (why I used that analogy).

Though to the uneducated, or perhaps better to say not in the know, it might be "plausible", I suspect (hey I am not in the CIA) that the chances (of the CIA being incontrol of Al-Qaeda) are incredibly SLIM.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 April 2009, 11:53 AM   #52
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
... There are plenty of documented connections throughout the history of the CIA with rogue/terrorist groups. Al-Queda for one, ...
Al-Qaeda? or Al-Queda? Which one is the CIT with? Prove it!

Prove the CIA used Al-Qaeda/UBL to do 911.
Prove a connection and explain in detail the connection of CIA to Al-Qaeda/UBL. Otherwise you have a nut case idea you made up to prove nothing. And you did a great job doing it. Sources?
beachnut 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 April 2009, 01:35 PM   #53
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Al-Qaeda? or Al-Queda? Which one is the CIT with? Prove it!

Prove the CIA used Al-Qaeda/UBL to do 911.
Prove a connection and explain in detail the connection of CIA to Al-Qaeda/UBL. Otherwise you have a nut case idea you made up to prove nothing. And you did a great job doing it. Sources?
To me this just proves quality over quantity. I could barely understand your first post, but swallowed my grammatical pride and responded anyway.Now it seems as though you have not even read what I wrote, but merely skimmed it over and replied hastily.

Just so we're clear, and you may feel free to claim a moral victory, I cannot prove that Al-Keida(arrific sharmouta) is controlled by the CIA. I don't even believe this to be the case.

It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.
ImANiceGuy 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 April 2009, 02:03 PM   #54
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,897
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.

Care to provide some of this documentation.
Baylor 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 April 2009, 02:06 PM   #55
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Moreover................................is a good enough segue.

I figure that since you will get very few MoAT (Members of Alternate Theory) through here posting their evidence, as they are aptly torn to shreds, I could shoot a few questions out there to the crowds; things I have on my list to look into......you can help me wade through the bs.

As background, I began my 9/11 research a couple months ago, and recently joined jref as an alternate to the horrible,horrible threads at youtube. I read completely through any thread I post in, but do not have time to read through 50+ page threads....only<50.

Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?

Last edited by ImANiceGuy; 27th April 2009 at 02:09 PM. Reason: swearword
ImANiceGuy 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 April 2009, 02:09 PM   #56
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?

Financial motives, insurance, asbestos removal, blah blah blah, discussed here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=69261
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 April 2009, 02:52 PM   #57
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?
Many big buildings of that vintage were fireproofed with asbestos. The process for making such buildings safe is well understood and widely practiced. I've worked and done renovations in such buildings.

It's called abatement.
http://www.sacredplaces.org/PSP-Info...0Abatement.htm
This is just one more topic that the Twoofers are clueless about. It's a long list.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl 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 April 2009, 12:18 AM   #58
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,133
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
As to the LIHOP vs the MIHOP, I would like first to offer a pre-amble. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories, and am not an 'apologist for 911Truth'. I only wish to suggest that the two theories could be merged in order for a 911 conspiracy theory to be logistically possible. Enter "smacco's razor" which states that since a simple explanation won't work, it must get more and more complicated in order to succeed. It's all highly suspect and improbable, not very plausible, etc. If a rogue agency were planning 911 for whatever reason, they would need to make it happen; mix 2 cups of thermite, with a teaspoon of remote controlled plane; but would also passively let it happen by ignoring the intel that is predicting an imminent attack. So I guess, after re-reading that sentence, that a LIHOP scenario would actually be a MIHOP, because ommision of action is still an act. Does that make sense?
No, I don't think it does.

Reduce it to a simple example. Suppose you see a mugger lying in wait for the next passer-by, you notice that the next person passing by is an old enemy of yours, and you decide not to tell him there's a mugger coming. That's a classic LIHOP scenario. If, on the other hand, you go and talk to the mugger, and say, "There's a guy in a blue jacket coming round the corner in a minute, and I happen to know he's carrying $20,000 in cash", then leave the scene, that's a MIHOP scenario. In the latter scenario, you've still allowed the attack to happen, but you've also taken positive action to instigate it. In the former, there is only a decision not to act. There's also the false flag scenario, where you mug your enemy yourself and frame the mugger for it. That's a purer form of MIHOP because you're taking all the action yourself.

The point of all this is that MIHOP can encompass a degree of LIHOP, but not vice versa.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th April 2009, 12:27 AM   #59
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,133
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh.
As I understand it, that's not the case. It's well-documented that the Afghan Mujihadeen received training from the CIA, but they were a different group from the foreign Mujihadeen who went on to become the basis of al-Qaeda. There's no known connection between the CIA and the foreign Mujihadeen, who were financially supported by other Arab nations. The CIA - al-Qaeda link is a classic example of something that's automatically assumed by conspiracy theorists to be not only true but obvious, when a study of the actual history shows that reality is far more complex. This has been discussed here in the past, but I don't have a link to the thread.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th April 2009, 12:51 AM   #60
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
...Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?
There is a far simpler way of dealing with issues/claims of that type - ie Motivation in this case.

Motivation for what? Answer "Demolition" etc...

BUT there was no demolition and that is readily provable to:
a) Any honest engineer;
b) any non-engineer with a modicum of physics - all the energy and complicated stuff is totally unnecessary to show no demolition.
c) Any non engineer no physics type who will accept the word of experts in the field.

By my count that only leaves engineers and physics aware persons who are dishonest; "truthers" with no qualifications whose agenda includes "Never See or Admit The Truth" and that sector of uninvolved general public who don't want to think clearly anyway.

Have I missed any?

Therefore why do we debate here?

My objective is simple. I will continue to rebut nonsense about demolition whilst ever I want to use the energy AND I believe that the information will assist genuine seekers for truth.

The David S Chandlers and the Tony Szambotis and Richard Gages and Steven E Jones are not my target. Generally they are too far down the track of commitment to whatever their mendacious objective is.

All the other esoteric engineering and physics may be useful debate for interest of those involved - it is strictly irrelevant to proving "no demolition" for the "reasonable person".
ozeco41 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 April 2009, 01:04 AM   #61
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,133
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Does anyone know of rumors that the towers were going to need asbestos removal and that it would cost billions? ie. possible motive?
A good place to start researching this is http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_..._the_wtc_.html, which has links to online articles discussing various aspects of the financial performance of the WTC complex. IIRC there was only asbestos in the bottom 40 storeys of WTC1, possibly some in WTC2 but none in any of the later buildings (regulations were changed during the construction of WTC1). A reasonable figure for abatement costs in WTC1/2 seems to be rather more than $200M, but nowhere close to "billions". A reasonable figure for abatement costs in the other five WTC buildings destroyed is of course zero.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th April 2009, 03:25 AM   #62
Laeke
Critical Thinker
 
Laeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
*snip*
I read the thread you linked (Evil Genius/Motive), it was a good read. It maybe wasn't what i tought of, but I do not mind going there: if I had the answers, I wouldn't ask the question in the first place.
I mostly agree with your conclusion in this other thread, even though I think discussing motives is highly speculative (yet very entertaining).

To be honest, my question is tricky because it is somewhat vague.
I do like Myriad answer: indeed, the collapse of the towers -and especially WTC7- is probably one of the best starting point. I would say that it falls under the same category as the absence of video/images at the Pentagon: It went against people's expectations.

I guess this proves that movies and TV do have an effect on us: people expected the Pentagon to have SAM popping out of the roof, to be a fortress with dozens of camera to cover all angles, the USAF to have 100 planes up in the air as soon as something suspicious was going, they didn't expect the towers to fall (or to fall like this).
This is mostly what the OP was about, so I managed to go full circle there.

Last edited by Laeke; 28th April 2009 at 03:26 AM. Reason: Corrections
Laeke 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 April 2009, 03:38 AM   #63
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Yes, today people seem to have this expectation of how things work...

The World According to "24".

TAM
T.A.M. 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 April 2009, 08:35 AM   #64
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
And the probability of that happening three times in one day is what?
So your whole support of the MIHOP theory is just a big argument from personal incredulity?
Pardalis 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 April 2009, 08:38 AM   #65
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
You know what this subforum needs? Another troll.
So many trolls so little time.
tsig 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 April 2009, 08:49 AM   #66
Bill Thompson
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,171
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
The 9/11 Commission was not able to determine where the funding for the plot came from. All you need for an inside job is a few rogue elements within the government who have accesss to a few hundred thousand dollar slush fund. They recruit a bunch of sucidal jihadists and on 9/11 plays out in the exact tragic way it did.

But no, the CT nuts come up with nonsense like super-duper nano-thermite, exploding celing tiles, space beams, pods, misslies, tampered black boxes, manipulated stock trades, flyovers, Israeli secret agents, switched DNA, faked phone calls, stand-down orders, mysterious white jets, the NWO, fake hijackers, fake bin Laden, evil Jews and drunken lap dances.

Am I forgetting anything?
From where do you get "The 9/11 Commission was not able to determine where the funding for the plot came from"?

Since Osama bin Laden had millions, I do not think there is much doubt. Also, lots of people throughout the Middle Eash donated to Al Qaeda thinking they were helping Islam and the poor.
Bill Thompson 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 April 2009, 10:11 AM   #67
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
From where do you get "The 9/11 Commission was not able to determine where the funding for the plot came from"?

Since Osama bin Laden had millions, I do not think there is much doubt. Also, lots of people throughout the Middle Eash donated to Al Qaeda thinking they were helping Islam and the poor.

Osama was disowned by the family in the early 90s and all the income and ownership interests in the family businesses was put in trust for Osama's kids. The much publicized "hundreds of millions" figure was in an FBI document but backed up by absolutely no information, hard or otherwise. Much of the families finances came out in an L.A. divorce trial.

Osama was frequently incapable of making payroll for his retinue in the Sudan and Afghanistan days.

The above is from Steve Colls's bio of the family, The bin Ladens,, over-all, Osama's income was about $1 million/year over 20 years up to 9/11 but he was able to raise Jihadi donations of many millions for his causes.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.

Last edited by BigAl; 30th April 2009 at 10:47 AM.
BigAl 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 April 2009, 03:04 PM   #68
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
The 9/11 Commission was not able to determine where the funding for the plot came from. All you need for an inside job is a few rogue elements within the government who have accesss to a few hundred thousand dollar slush fund. They recruit a bunch of sucidal jihadists and on 9/11 plays out in the exact tragic way it did.

But no, the CT nuts come up with nonsense like super-duper nano-thermite, exploding celing tiles, space beams, pods, misslies, tampered black boxes, manipulated stock trades, flyovers, Israeli secret agents, switched DNA, faked phone calls, stand-down orders, mysterious white jets, the NWO, fake hijackers, fake bin Laden, evil Jews and drunken lap dances.

Am I forgetting anything?
... attack baboons?

tfk 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 April 2009, 04:13 PM   #69
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Osama was disowned by the family in the early 90s and all the income and ownership interests in the family businesses was put in trust for Osama's kids. The much publicized "hundreds of millions" figure was in an FBI document but backed up by absolutely no information, hard or otherwise. Much of the families finances came out in an L.A. divorce trial.

Osama was frequently incapable of making payroll for his retinue in the Sudan and Afghanistan days.

The above is from Steve Colls's bio of the family, The bin Ladens,, over-all, Osama's income was about $1 million/year over 20 years up to 9/11 but he was able to raise Jihadi donations of many millions for his causes.
BigAl is correct. Bin Laden did indeed get disowned by his family for becoming an embarassment to the Saudi Government, among other things. Authors who've studied him note that much of the financing for al Qaeda actually didn't come directly from bin Laden's coffers, but from donors to his causes. From what I remember from books like the Coll book The bin Ladens, as well as his other work Ghost Wars, and others (that's what I get for being a library patron; I don't have the books at hand to re-reference ), Osama was famous for his ability to raise money for Islamic "charities". Although it's unclear whether donors genuinely thought it was for relief, or were in complete understanding where the money was really going; most likely, the reality is probably some mix of the two. At any rate, this link from NewsMine.org also discusses this in a general way.

Quote:
While the report said the government has been unable to determine the source of the attack's financing, the commission said it appears al-Qaida's financial support does not come from bin Laden personally.

"The CIA now estimates that it costs al-Qaida about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations," the report said.

The belief that bin Laden's net worth was so high gathered steam shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Katzman released a report, which he said recently drew on a 1996 State Department fact sheet, that indicated al-Qaida was tapping bin Laden's $300 million personal fortune and other sources.

By February 2002, Katzman had updated the estimate, indicating that bin Laden may be worth anywhere from $50 million to $300 million, but that the group had apparently become self-sustaining. The revision attracted little notice.
On top of that, he did lose damn near all his money at the time to events in the Sudan; at the time the US started putting pressure on the Sudan to deport him, opportunistic individuals in the Sudan obtained Osama bin Laden's financial interests there for basically a song:

Quote:
His Sudanese businesses were believed to include an Islamic bank, an import-export company and other operations that exported agricultural products. But the Sept. 11 commission said the businesses did not provide significant income, and that when bin Laden left the country in 1996, it appears the Sudanese government took his assets.

"He left Sudan with practically nothing," the commission found. "When bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan, he relied on the Taliban until he was able to reinvigorate his fund-raising efforts by drawing on ties to wealthy Saudi individuals that he had established during the Afghan war in the 1980s."
Here's a link from Google Books excerpt of Ghost Wars; rather than quote the extended segment whole, I'd rather point anyone interested at the source to read it for yourself. It covers what I've written above and goes into a bit more detail.

I've seen multiple books that make for fascinating reading and are good resources for information on the man. Here they are. Now, I'm not about to say that you'll understand him after reading them, but you'll come away with a good idea of his history and activities. The following are all links to Amazon.com's pages on these books.

The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century
Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America
The Al Qaeda Reader
Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
The Al Qaeda Reader
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 April 2009, 04:26 PM   #70
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
... attack baboons?

Yeah. That's from nutcase Dr. Bill "I'll See Your Lunacy and Raise You Mine" Deagle.

Quote:
... weaponized animals like baboons that they have in a secret facility down near Galveston, Texas. They have them set up so that they have remote operating controls, so they have a kill mode and they have these nano-armor that can stop pretty well anything. Any 80 lb baboon can pick up a 300 lb man and tear him literally in two. They can run at 35 miles per hour, and they can jump 15-20 feet in the air. So I don't think you are going to outrun these. And their plan is to create supersoldiers.
Source.

He also thinks mini-nukes were used to bring down the towers, and that the NWO is a load of junk because the real world dominating authority is Project Omega, which is "... run by both human and non-human entities." (both claims documented in same source linked above).

Cuckoo as a Swiss clock. Just read his stuff. You gotta be really out there to stand out amongst truthers, and he's quite a ways out there. I'd even say he's more delusional than Jim Fetzer, and that's saying a lot!
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 April 2009, 04:36 PM   #71
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Best evidence? No such entity exists.

Let me quantify it:

a=0, b=0, c=0, d=0,....n=0

You see, when everything is equal, there is no "best."
Mince 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 1st May 2009, 04:58 PM   #72
richman2112
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Yeah. That's from nutcase Dr. Bill "I'll See Your Lunacy and Raise You Mine" Deagle.



Source.

He also thinks mini-nukes were used to bring down the towers, and that the NWO is a load of junk because the real world dominating authority is Project Omega, which is "... run by both human and non-human entities." (both claims documented in same source linked above).

Cuckoo as a Swiss clock. Just read his stuff. You gotta be really out there to stand out amongst truthers, and he's quite a ways out there. I'd even say he's more delusional than Jim Fetzer, and that's saying a lot!
LOL deagle is the best. Steven Jones had a debate with him on thermite verses mini nukes and you could tell that even Jones thought he was a whack job. He always cites these "sources" that even the president would envy.
richman2112 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 19th August 2009, 12:19 PM   #73
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
What I'm saying is that nothing is simple!

I don't believe it is strictly either LIHOP or MIHOP. A conspiracy of such a grand nature would require many facets of both theories, and all the associated problems.

If you believe that the Gov't could be involved in any capacity with the attacks on 9/11, then its not that far of a stretch to say that the CIA mostly controls Al-Queda.
Good luck with that. Also take a look at Smacco's Razor while you're at it.

To help you with your own terminology, any fusion of LIHOP and MIHOP is MIHOP by definition, an unnecessarily complicated one. Think about it.



I don't doubt it. One could also say that if you believe the Gov't could be involved ...etc, then it's not that far of a stretch to say that Bigfoot pilots a UFO powered by Original Coke.
Classic truth...
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
... that exist in a realm of fantasy. And believing this makes life worth living. And instinctively knowing this makes conspiracy theorists smarter than the common man who is in the dark.
Bigfoot pilots a UFO powered by Original Coke
beachnut 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 10:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.