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

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

Notices


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 3rd March 2006, 11:03 AM   #1
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Loose Change

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Last edited by delphi_ote; 3rd March 2006 at 11:11 AM.
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 3rd March 2006, 11:12 AM   #2
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,164
*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade
__________________
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into other theories. You sideswipe it, rear-end it, and roll it over at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. And the way it fails, and under what conditions, gives you the information to make the next theory even better.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
Hellbound 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 3rd March 2006, 11:13 AM   #3
chipmunk stew
The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy
 
chipmunk stew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.
I haven't watched it. Is it that Alex Jones video? I had a guy trying to convince me to watch some Alex Jones video, but at the time I flat out refused because of some of the blatantly specious stuff he was quoting from it.

I guess I'll have to watch it now that it's all over Google video so I can tear it apart next time someone tells me I just have to see this thing.
__________________

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 3rd March 2006, 11:34 AM   #4
MWare
Muse
 
MWare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 666
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.
__________________
“The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
--George Stigler
"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." --Steven Weinberg
MWare 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 3rd March 2006, 12:35 PM   #5
Serenity
Serenity Now!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 862
I couldn't continue watching it after the 2nd missile theory was hatched. A missile launched milliseconds before impact strikes me as absurdly unnecessary considering the fully fueled monstrosity that's right behind it. I'm expecting my brother to e-mail this one any day now.
Serenity 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 3rd March 2006, 01:01 PM   #6
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
So the guys that made this were apparently students doing a film project.
Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas. Phil Jayhan apparently has some connection with them, too.

This is madness of epic proportions.

Quote:
Why would anybody want to investigate the three, wonderful young men (Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, and Jason Bermas) who created Loose Change?

The reason is that the criminal network that staged the 9/11 attack may be promoting Loose Change in order to push aside more important people and videos.

From the criminal's point of view, there is a big advantage to promoting Loose Change rather than somebody like myself. The main advantage would be to create the illusion that they are exposing corruption.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 3rd March 2006, 01:14 PM   #7
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
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.

Quote:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 4th March 2006, 03:47 AM   #8
WanderinWTF
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 369
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.
Delphi_ote What are your beliefs of the 9/11 attack? Could you tell me anything that happend with the election in Florida? I didn't watch the whole video, however i do wanna point something out New York to me is the weakest defending city in the U.S. that has a lot of $$$!!!
WanderinWTF 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 4th March 2006, 08:48 AM   #9
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by WanderinWTF View Post
Delphi_ote What are your beliefs of the 9/11 attack?
I believe in Bush the President, Leader of Texas and America, and in Dick Cheney, His evil partner conceived by the 9/11 tragedy, born of the spinmeister Rove, suffered under Osama Bin Laden was elected, stupid, and incompitent. The towers mysteriously fell; the third day He rose again to make a speech He ascended into The White House and sits at the right hand of Donald Rumsfeld, the Father Almighty From thence He will judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 9/11 missile attacks The planes not found The complicity of the CIA The free fall of the towers The destruction with explosives And the conspiracy everlasting Amen.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 4th March 2006, 09:06 AM   #10
Serenity
Serenity Now!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
I believe in Bush the President, Leader of Texas and America, and in Dick Cheney, His evil partner conceived by the 9/11 tragedy, born of the spinmeister Rove, suffered under Osama Bin Laden was elected, stupid, and incompitent. The towers mysteriously fell; the third day He rose again to make a speech He ascended into The White House and sits at the right hand of Donald Rumsfeld, the Father Almighty From thence He will judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 9/11 missile attacks The planes not found The complicity of the CIA The free fall of the towers The destruction with explosives And the conspiracy everlasting Amen.


They should change the name from "Loose Change" to "Loose Marbles!"
Serenity 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 4th March 2006, 11:14 AM   #11
WanderinWTF
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Serenity View Post


They should change the name from "Loose Change" to "Loose Marbles!"
Pls inform me as to who THEY are pls lol.
WanderinWTF 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 4th March 2006, 11:49 AM   #12
Serenity
Serenity Now!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by WanderinWTF View Post
Pls inform me as to who THEY are pls lol.
Why the evil-doer’s… purveyors of all things conspiratorial. Their names are cloaked in secrecy, but can be revealed for a small fee. May I direct you to the nearest money drop?
Serenity 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 4th March 2006, 01:13 PM   #13
WanderinWTF
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 369
OMG you believe in the Anit-Christ. He's not the person in charge of Texas or the U.S. In fact he lost the votes in Texas, they have planted that in peoples brains so when they think about it winning was possible cause Texas is so big. To win Fl. which was trickery and planned, not by genius but by power, money and destruction. He only takes orders like a puppet, a robot. when I see him on tv his eyes look so cold.
WanderinWTF 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 8th March 2006, 10:10 AM   #14
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 8th March 2006, 10:23 AM   #15
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
For anyone else who might run across this video, here's a link to a good reference on how the towers fell:
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category

ETA: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...81809EC588EF21
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Last edited by delphi_ote; 8th March 2006 at 10:33 AM.
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 8th March 2006, 10:44 AM   #16
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?
Any picture or video of either of the collapsing building should suffice -- much of the outer structure was split off from the building during the collapse and did indeed fall at free-fall speeds. A picture clearly shows such pieces below the place where they fell off and a video shows them falling more quickly than the building itself.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2006, 10:53 AM   #17
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by manny View Post
Any picture or video of either of the collapsing building should suffice -- much of the outer structure was split off from the building during the collapse and did indeed fall at free-fall speeds. A picture clearly shows such pieces below the place where they fell off and a video shows them falling more quickly than the building itself.
Good point. Thanks, manny.

Just a note, the point that seemed to convince my roomie the most was the "think of how many people would have to be involved to cover this up" argument. Coupled with "who would do this" and "why would anyone do this" I could tell he started to be a bit more critical of the film.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 8th March 2006, 11:35 AM   #18
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade
This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.
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 8th March 2006, 11:49 AM   #19
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Luke T. View Post
This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.
But this is an order of magnitude more absurd. We all watched the (rule 8)ing building collapse on our TVs. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people's lives were directly impacted by the events. Thousands of lives were ended and two wars were fought as a result of this event. It happened right in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world, not far out in orbit. Faking this would have taken thousands of people and billions of dollars. Nobody would have the motivation to do this, either. I could see faking the moon landing maybe to psych out the USSR or something. The motivation behind this 9/11 conspiracy is so murky and absurd. To collect insurance money? To make returns on investments? To justify military action?

It's madness. That this video is starting to catch on around college campuses really makes me worry about the future of our country.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 8th March 2006, 11:51 AM   #20
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Just a note, the point that seemed to convince my roomie the most was the "think of how many people would have to be involved to cover this up" argument.
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?
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2006, 12:33 PM   #21
Orb
Dust Mote
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 324
Not sure who said this first but it always rings true: If the president can't keep getting a BJ secret, how do you expect to cover up something as large as the twin tower conspiracy?
Orb 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 8th March 2006, 01:12 PM   #22
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by manny View Post
I don't get how anyone gets past that argument.
They get past it because they're not thinking critically. Watch the documentary sometime. It just bombards you with anecdotes and sinister implications. They never put the pieces together enough that you could call what they're presenting a "theory." They just drop enough hints to prey on what people want to believe. Yes, I think they want to believe it. I don't understand why, but it seems like these people want to live in a bad Tom Clancy novel adaptation directed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

My room mate is a smart guy. The other guy who recommended the video to me is a Computer Science PhD student. They just weren't being critical thinkers.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 8th March 2006, 01:27 PM   #23
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,500
How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.
brodski 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 8th March 2006, 01:53 PM   #24
Ducky
Titanium Puprhero
 
Ducky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.


Yeah, Lewis Black said it best:

"At least have the common sense to send two fifteen year olds to Kinko's and tell them 'Look I need a picture of a camel with a nuke on its back.'"
Ducky 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 8th March 2006, 02:14 PM   #25
chipmunk stew
The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy
 
chipmunk stew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.
They're faking incompetence to make us believe that they couldn't possibly have pulled off the 9/11 hoax, and meanwhile they're profiting royally off Iraq. The longer they can stretch this thing out, the more they profit. Or at least that was the gist of a particularly loony rationale that one guy presented to me.
__________________

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 8th March 2006, 02:23 PM   #26
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,500
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
They're faking incompetence to make us believe that they couldn't possibly have pulled off the 9/11 hoax, and meanwhile they're profiting royally off Iraq. The longer they can stretch this thing out, the more they profit. Or at least that was the gist of a particularly loony rationale that one guy presented to me.
Did you ask him to stop and actualy listen to what he was saying himself?
Why would a government fake incompetence, when it comes so naturaly to all of them anyway.
brodski 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 8th March 2006, 03:37 PM   #27
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,164
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Yes, I think they want to believe it. I don't understand why, but it seems like these people want to live in a bad Tom Clancy novel adaptation directed by Jerry Bruckheimer.
Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think.

Also, I think it actually provides security of a sort. In the U.S., we've always had the "it can't happen here" attitude. Even after Oklahoma City, we didn't expect any foreign terrorists to be able to attack us here. 9/11 showed conclusively that this is false. Terrorists got into the country, lived here for some time, planned their attacks, trained fo their attacks, and carried them out without us being able to stop it.

Positing conspiracy also elemenates some of this type of fear. "Terrorists can't just get in without people knowing, the government allowed them in. They still have control." In a backwards sort of way, it's a way to cling to a sense that we aren't out of control at all.

Least, that's my ideas. Take 'em for what they're worth (unless you have small pipes on your septic system).
__________________
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into other theories. You sideswipe it, rear-end it, and roll it over at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. And the way it fails, and under what conditions, gives you the information to make the next theory even better.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
Hellbound 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 8th March 2006, 03:49 PM   #28
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
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.

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?

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.

Last edited by Luke T.; 8th March 2006 at 03:52 PM.
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 8th March 2006, 04:25 PM   #29
chipmunk stew
The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy
 
chipmunk stew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
Did you ask him to stop and actualy listen to what he was saying himself?
Why would a government fake incompetence, when it comes so naturaly to all of them anyway.
Unfortunately, at the time I was so dumbfounded by the idea that I didn't have a response. I just sort of sputtered. I think he thought he'd made a really good point and had won the debate. He was a casual acquaintance, and I never had the opportunity to bring it up with him again. Not that it would have mattered. I mean if you're willing to take the conspiracy theory to that level, reason alone is not going to bring you back.
__________________

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 8th March 2006, 04:31 PM   #30
sat556
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 552
I've not really paid much attention to the CT on this, but I have just watched the video. The only bit that confused me was the Pentagon bit. From what they showed there really didn't seem to have been a plane there. The hole being tiny, no ground marks for entry etc. I could see however, that they were picking the facts that suited. Is there an explanation for this that is so simple I'm just being idiotic by missing it?
I watched the clip of the plane entering the second tower three times over due to the commentary saying that it just clips the building or something like that. It didn't look like that to me, looked like one hefty hit! These people must think that we aren't paying too much attention.
sat556 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 8th March 2006, 05:04 PM   #31
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
Originally Posted by sat556 View Post
I've not really paid much attention to the CT on this, but I have just watched the video. The only bit that confused me was the Pentagon bit. From what they showed there really didn't seem to have been a plane there. The hole being tiny, no ground marks for entry etc. I could see however, that they were picking the facts that suited. Is there an explanation for this that is so simple I'm just being idiotic by missing it?
I watched the clip of the plane entering the second tower three times over due to the commentary saying that it just clips the building or something like that. It didn't look like that to me, looked like one hefty hit! These people must think that we aren't paying too much attention.
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.

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 8th March 2006, 05:07 PM   #32
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
According to USA Today, the plane that hit the Pentagon left a hole 30 yards wide.
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 8th March 2006, 05:12 PM   #33
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
More photos of the Pentagon:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109114a_hr.jpg

There was a 16 foot hole was a hole created in an interior wall. A punch-out into the courtyard between the B and C rings.

Last edited by Luke T.; 8th March 2006 at 05:29 PM.
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 8th March 2006, 05:17 PM   #34
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
The film also claims there was no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon, but if you look at the photo I posted above, you can see what looks like a jet engine in the red box. And it ain't the small engine part shown in the film.
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 8th March 2006, 05:34 PM   #35
Luke T.
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,727
In the film, the narrator says there was only a single hole, 16 feet wide, made by the plane's impact. They are very careful about what photos they show and seem to deliberately avoid showing the hole to the right of what photos they do show that looks like a hole created by an engine. And then they go on to say that the engines should have made holes!

ETA: Look at the hole below and to the left of the American flag in the photo I posted above. That is the hole they avoid showing in the film.
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 8th March 2006, 06:08 PM   #36
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Great links, Luke! Thanks a lot. The more I learn about this, the more I'll be able to nip this BS in the bud next time I encounter it. I'm sure I'm likely to encounter it again in my line of work...

By the way, if you want a detailed analysis of the Pentagon hit, check the Snopes article on it.

Quote:
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: False.
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 8th March 2006, 06:23 PM   #37
delphi_ote
Debunking Ninja
 
delphi_ote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think.

Also, I think it actually provides security of a sort. In the U.S., we've always had the "it can't happen here" attitude. Even after Oklahoma City, we didn't expect any foreign terrorists to be able to attack us here. 9/11 showed conclusively that this is false. Terrorists got into the country, lived here for some time, planned their attacks, trained fo their attacks, and carried them out without us being able to stop it.

Positing conspiracy also elemenates some of this type of fear. "Terrorists can't just get in without people knowing, the government allowed them in. They still have control." In a backwards sort of way, it's a way to cling to a sense that we aren't out of control at all.

Least, that's my ideas. Take 'em for what they're worth (unless you have small pipes on your septic system).
Well put, Hutch. I think that's definitely part of the appeal, but I think there are two other factors: excitement and simplicity.

Excitement: We've heard the same story over and over about the towers. There's not enough drama involved. Some of the characters are almost totally unknown. The conspiracy makes it all so much more exciting. We see Bush on T.V. every day. The characters get a face (especially the villians.)

Simplicity: International politics and different cultures are too complicated. The facts don't give us someone to directly hate. They can't get self-righteous and scream and yell. They don't have anyone to track down and take action against (remember, I'm talking about the couch sitting gossipers. They're not going to strap on an M16 and go fight anyone.) The enemy is not a vague ideology thousands or millions of people loosely identify with, but 10 guys smoking cigars in a room together. They can track down the "real" terrorists watching T.V. and surfing the internet.

You can see where control, excitment, and simplicity might all play into one another. Make it simple so you can bring the problem into a realm where you can pretend to have some control. Get excited about each bit of information you string together on your couch, because it brings the situation that much more under control. Simplifying the complex realities makes it easier to get worked up and excited about.

Hmm... the more I think about it, these three points could equally well apply to anti-evolutionists, Holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxters, anti-big-pharma alternative medicine advocates... and on and on. There's definitely a pattern here.
__________________
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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 8th March 2006, 06:33 PM   #38
JamesDillon
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,631
Popular Mechanics ran an article in March 2005 debunking the 9/11 myths, which is available online:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html
__________________
"To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man."

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
JamesDillon 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 8th March 2006, 08:38 PM   #39
Gulliamo
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliamo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 488
Argh! I wish I had found this thread before I asked the same questions here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=53349
Thanks for the good info and links!
__________________
Understand, you have a right to a belief and a theory, but when they are contradicted by observation, you probably should reconsider them. -Doctor X

"I'll pray for you." -Kirk Cameron (Evangelist)
"I'll think for you." -Brian Sapient (Rational Responders)
Gulliamo 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 8th March 2006, 08:50 PM   #40
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
It's also worth noting that among the passengers and crew who would have been killed or otherwise disappeared to "complete" any fictious story about AA flt 77 doing something other than crashing into the Pentagon was Barbara Olson, the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Ted argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. So in order to believe this theory one must suppose that one of the people most responsible for putting the President in office (and a long-time Republican fix-it guy in any event) either a) was left out of the loop on the conspiracy or b) desired to kill his wife, an unbelievably popular political commentator in her own right or c) Barbara Olson is alive and in perma-hiding.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » 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 11:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.