Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...

[Doc_Jude]

It is a bit of a stretch to make that sort of analogy in this thread. Unless you really want to say that the conspiracy theorists are right and the Government really was behind the attacks. Do you think so? I really would like to hear it and debate it with you if that is the case.

I don't care to debate this subject with anyone. No one here has first hand knowledge of the subject matter, but only what they've read, or seen & heard on television. I'm more concerned with those that would propose a solution for the "problem" and who said solution would benefit most. I don't see how the American people are benefiting from this "war" in Iraq. I also don't see how the Iraqi people are benefiting, with their shiny new democracy while still lacking reliable water or electrical utility service. Who is this "solution" benefiting?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...

Why? Because the U.S. Gov't won't provide undeniable evidence to the contrary, apparently to preserve "national security".

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If you dont care to debate, then why are you here?

If people want to argue that the hijackers were "intelligence assets" of some agency, perhaps thats possible (getting people to kill themselves would take some doing). Its when they start getting into the WTC was set up for demo is where I draw the "wingnut" line. Anybody with one iota of experience/knowledge of demolitions knows the ammount of equipment, manpower and risk involved in prepping an active building covertly. Its as close to impossible as you can get.

It would be easier to put rockets on an asteroid and remote control it into the WTC than it would be to wire them up for demo under the noses of thousands without being caught.

 

[OUMoose]

If people want to argue that the hijackers were "intelligence assets" of some agency, perhaps thats possible (getting people to kill themselves would take some doing). Its when they start getting into the WTC was set up for demo is where I draw the "wingnut" line. Anybody with one iota of experience/knowledge of demolitions knows the ammount of equipment, manpower and risk involved in prepping an active building covertly. Its as close to impossible as you can get.

It would be easier to put rockets on an asteroid and remote control it into the WTC than it would be to wire them up for demo under the noses of thousands without being caught.

/humor on

Don't give them any ideas dangit!!! *looks toward the sky with a wary eye*

As far as "intelligence assets", I'm going to go with MKULTRA for $500, Alex.

/humor off

 

[Doc_Jude]

If you dont care to debate, then why are you here?

I guess that you missed my first couple posts. No worries.

 

[Makalakumu]

If you dont care to debate, then why are you here?

If people want to argue that the hijackers were "intelligence assets" of some agency, perhaps thats possible (getting people to kill themselves would take some doing). Its when they start getting into the WTC was set up for demo is where I draw the "wingnut" line. Anybody with one iota of experience/knowledge of demolitions knows the ammount of equipment, manpower and risk involved in prepping an active building covertly. Its as close to impossible as you can get.

It would be easier to put rockets on an asteroid and remote control it into the WTC than it would be to wire them up for demo under the noses of thousands without being caught.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. As confused as I am with the issue, I find the whole thing stretches the limit of plausibility. And when certain people started saying that Tesla Weapons from Space were responsible, that pretty much set off my "crazy" alarms.

And that ain't easy...

All I can say is that there is a lot that I don't understand and that I would like to understand. As time has gone on and I've had time to think, I don't have enough info to throw my eggs in any baskets.

 

[Makalakumu]

As far as "intelligence assets", I'm going to go with MKULTRA for $500...

Zacharias Moussoui???

 

[Makalakumu]

Any proof would be nice. Not speculation, not possibilities and not something that can't be checked out. Good, solid facts.

This is something I am very interested in and if we can discuss it in a polite manner, I would very much appreciate it. What would you consider to be "facts" and "proof"? What would it take for you to even consider this as a possibility? Please note, I am not asking you to accept certain theories as truth, I'm just wondering what would really make you consider that this may have happened?

 

[Doc_Jude]

[yt]f7ixuf236Dk[/yt]

 

[Doc_Jude]

Why won't the 9-11 conspiracies go away?

[yt]fDkLoN-DZZA[/yt]

[yt]ISW9sXP_Sik[/yt]

The official story is too full of holes. That's why. They make claims but when asked for evidence, they either holler "National Security!" or "Traitor" or "Democrat Liberal Nut Case".

But we're expected to believe that a 250,000lb aircraft with a wingspan of 125' with a fuel payload of approx. 7,500 gallons of JP5...

hit the Pentagon and did this:

which turned into this:

BTW, THIS is what it looks like when a airliner hits a building...

 

[Mr. E]

What would you consider to be "facts" and "proof"? What would it take for you to even consider this as a possibility?

I do not see any difficulty in the idea of "proof" or "facts."

Proof is not speculation or accusation. Proof is not polls or a popularity contest. Proof is not something that can't be passed onto someone else or examined by others.

Blotan Hunka just explained why no one in engineering seems to think that anyone could rig the WTC with bombs and not be discovered. And there are videos of Bin Laden talking about the hijackers and taking credit in the eyes of Muslims for it and as Carol Kaur pointed out in another thread, no one is stepping forward to say "We didn't release that!"

So it seems logical to act as if Bin Laden was the cause of the 9-11 attacks without the government involved in any way and it is up to those that accuse the government to prove their case. Not the other way around.

Think about how you would go about convincing me that America did not land men on the moon if you want the sort of thing that would make me think differently about 9-11.

In both cases, pulling off such a huge, detailed plot in secret would be so difficult it is beyond what anyone else seems to have pulled off. And keeping it secret for decades would be even harder. And the consequences of a mistake or discovery would destroy everything that the plotters worked for, maybe even the collapse of the American civilization as we know it. So it is very far- fetched and requires solid proof.

So if there is something that may be one way, they you have to think that it may not be that way and throw it out as any sort of proof or facts.

As an example, Doc Jude just posted a lot of stuff. I looked on the first clip and saw that the crux seemed to be that a hijacker's passport just couldn't have survived the crash and this is offered as "proof" that it was a plant. But take a look at the following link.

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

So much for that idea. If there is a possibility that it may not be as the conspiracy theorists say, then I am not buying it. Answers to the rest of Doc Jude's postings probably can be found at the same site if you want to look.

I have never even seen a rocket launch. And none of us here have been to the Moon. But the vast number of voices that I trust have said that there were men on the Moon and I trust it because I or anyone else could find out facts if we really wanted to. And I demand that same sort of thing for 9-11 as well.

Proof is something that can be shared and discovered by others. And the bigger the story, the more likely sources other than some neo-nazi with a web site will pick it up. The press does make mistakes, and they run retractions from time to time. But if there was a big story then other sources with reasonable trust would pick it up and do their own verifications all over the world.

As an example, if The Financial Times of London reported that an observatory with a huge telescope they hired to get shots of the moon landing sites could not find anything where they were supposed to be, I would take notice. I would then expect that The New York Times, Al- Jeezra and the Pretoria Times would also go to local astonomers and run stories saying that there way no remains where the landing sites on the Moon were supposed to be. And then you might convince me that there was something to the moon landing conspiracies. But some site that claims there is no proof of the sites would not convince me, even if they posted photos they said were of the areas.

And if someone gets cute with how they present the facts and what they leave out, then I am going to call them on it and brand them for what they are. There are neo-nazis out there, and crazy people out there, and they have access to the internet. So it should not be surprised that these hate-mongers would drop facts, exaggerate and outright lie about things on their web sites to push the idea that the world is run by jews or some sort of cabel. If someone takes something that started on an anti-semetic site and tries to offer it up as "proof" then they are either sympathetic to such evil or they are too damn stupid to bother to check their facts and use some critical thinking before helping to spread the hate. And I am going to look at them like the stupid, evil people they are.

I have seen people link to newspaper sites that talk about conspiracy theorists and give some quotes by them as to why they think the way they do. The way things are presented is as if the newspaper were interviewing them as part of an investigation into the conspiracy rather than the freak show it was intended. When I see that sort of thing, I treat the person as if they were deceptive and will continue to try to fool others. If someone gets several of their 'facts' shot down and yet still tries to continue on with trying to convince others I know that they are not interested in the truth and will treat them as such. I will never take their word for anything, even if I were to take anyone's word on something like this instead of proof.

That is pretty much what I demand to make me give anymore than a few seconds to suspect that OBL did not commit 9-11. Just think of the type of thing that would convince me that America did not land on the Moon and you will see what type of things I will accept and why I laugh at anything else.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The Pentagon is made of vastly different material from the WTC. The ballistics of the impact were different too. The "hole shape" thing is a non-issue IMO.

 

[Makalakumu]

That is pretty much what I demand to make me give anymore than a few seconds to suspect that OBL did not commit 9-11. Just think of the type of thing that would convince me that America did not land on the Moon and you will see what type of things I will accept and why I laugh at anything else.

I believe we went to the moon, BTW. But, lets just say that another country, like France or China sends a sattalite to the moon to map it in detail. And they do not find any evidence of moon landers, flags, foot prints, etc. Would you consider that to be evidence that everyone could accept?

I like your post, FWIW, but I want to try and pull out some concrete examples of things that would cause you to reconsider what happened on 9/11. I'm very curious to hear this from people who are furiously skeptical of this issue.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Pentagon is made of vastly different material from the WTC. The ballistics of the impact were different too. The "hole shape" thing is a non-issue IMO.

It sure is made of different stuff, so it definitely can be expected to act differently when struck. Here's what I want to know though...

How does that matter?

I truly don't understand how the wings of this plane seemingly violate the laws of conservation of momentum and get sucked into hole with the rest of the plane.

I've spoken to engineers and other physicists about this and the best explanation I've recieved is that "weird" things happen at those speeds.

What is "weird" and what is impossible?

 

[Mr. E]

I truly don't understand how the wings of this plane seemingly violate the laws of conservation of momentum and get sucked into hole with the rest of the plane.

Who said they did?

Read this for a start.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

Then this,

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Pay attention to this part.

The Missing Wings and Tail

This argument, based on features 1, 2, and 3, holds that since the outer expanses of the wings and most of the vertical tail section of a 757 could not have fit through the facade's impact punctures, they should have been visible in the post-crash photographs of the building's exterior.

The argument makes the error of assuming that large pieces of the wings and tail should have remained intact. A crash study suggests that the over-300-mph impact of a jetliner with the Pentagon's heavy masonry facade would have reduced the entire aircraft -- and certainly its relatively light wings and tail -- to confetti.

Another error in this argument is its implicit assumption that the photographs of the Pentagon's lawn show it to be debris-free. In fact, the photographs have pronounced foreshortening of regions near the building, which, together with variations in the terrain, may hide significant debris fields.

If you want more specifics about there really was a lot of debris, check out the following link.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

So yeah, it looks like the bulk of the aircraft went into the building, but maybe the wings got sheared off and were left on the lawn outside. You can see the photos of the debris for yourself. If the entire plane got "sucked in" as you are trying to say, why is there debris in the pictures?

Really, do your homework. It took a quick search on the internet to find these sites that shoot down what your hint that there really was no plane that hit the Pentagon. It would be easier if you checked before you posted things like the wings having to get sucked into the Pentagon as if it were fact. You may also note that the sites I linked to thinks there was a conspiracy by the government and they still say that there was a plane that hit the Pentagon. They think people that throw out theories like yours are trojan horses trying to discredit real research. If even they say that there is no real evidence to doubt the Pentagon attack as the story goes, where does that leave you?

Here is another source, but one that some people just refuse to listen to due to their conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

Big Plane, Small Holes
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile — part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."


FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

Remember what I said?

if there is something that may be one way, they you have to think that it may not be that way and throw it out as any sort of proof or facts

And let us be honest, how stupid would a conspiracy planner have to be to try to fake a plane hitting the Pentagon without a real aircraft considering all the roads and people around it? There were people that saw the plane go in. I know you have had this pointed out to you and you tried to argue that maybe the witnesses were led to believe something they did not. The same goes for you trying to argue at first that there was no debris. Anyone else that clicks on that related thread at the bottom of this can see you go through that. So maybe you should do some reading and critical thinking before you toss things like this.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

What I believe is that there is a HUGE difference between mathematical "impossibilities" and the actual crash. How many actual plane/building crashes is that "fact" based on? If there were studies of "X" number of actual airplane crashes into buildings and they showed it was impossible for the wings to wind up inside, that I may believe. What I dont swallow is a bunch of internet conspiracy nuts yammering about "impossible physics". Like Mr. E previously stated, the "facts" they are presenting lack credibility.What you find is that when things actually happen for the first time that they dont always go as an equation says they should. And as Mr E has stated. Who says there was no debris outside? It would be FAR easier for a gvt. agency to plant a hijacker on a plane and fly it into a building than it would be to strike a bldg. with a missile in broad daylight, in a populated place and THEN disguise it as a plane after the fact.

Why, instead of trying to take the easiest explination (gvt. hijackers) and prove that, do the wingnuts need to make all kinds of half-assed CSI investigations into physics, demolitions and crash scene investigations? I think its because its easier to feed their conspiracy obsession doing that then it is to try to prove that the hijackers were hired/cultivated assets. Its also not as much fun and you cant obsess over photographs and physics and videos as easily with humans as you can over "nuts and bolts".

While the conspiracy theory wingnuts like to say we just dont want to believe the gvt. would do this. I believe that they not only want, they somehow NEED to believe that the gvt. DID do it. Its some part of their personality and belief structure. While THEY may say I am trying to avoid the "truth" by closing my eyes to their "evidence". I say that THEY, deep down inside know that they are "wingnuts" but assuage that with the balm of being "open minded". Their minds are so "open" that their brains have fallen out and every nutty idea out there has been sucked in (minus the wings) by the vaccum.

 

[TimoS]

Why, instead of trying to take the easiest explination (gvt. hijackers) and prove that, do the wingnuts need to make all kinds of half-assed CSI investigations into physics, demolitions and crash scene investigations?

I think there are (at least) two reasons: first, with complex explanations some conspiracy theorists appear to have thought the scenario through really thoroughly, so it gives them credibility in the eyes of other likeminded people and also, and more importantly, in the eyes of the general public who is not so well versed in science

 

[Doc_Jude]

While the conspiracy theory wingnuts like to say we just dont want to believe the gvt. would do this. I believe that they not only want, they somehow NEED to believe that the gvt. DID do it. Its some part of their personality and belief structure. While THEY may say I am trying to avoid the "truth" by closing my eyes to their "evidence". I say that THEY, deep down inside know that they are "wingnuts" but assuage that with the balm of being "open minded". Their minds are so "open" that their brains have fallen out and every nutty idea out there has been sucked in (minus the wings) by the vaccum.

Insulting the intelligence of those that don't swallow the gov't story hook, line, & sinker, with a smile on their face, certainly doesn't help your argument. Are you happy that there were no WMDs? Do you agree that getting Saddam out was justification (& the true reason) for invading Iraq and the mess now is worth it all?

I don't believe in UFOs, spoon bending, psychic healers, or any of the fringe crap. But when the government lies to the people, then anything they say SHOULD be questioned. Expert testimony means little, since you can get an "expert" to say whatever you need them to say, you just need to shop around long enough to find an expert that you agree with.

I asked my father, a retired Seattle fireman/arson investigator/building inspector/insurance investigator, & a man whose opinion I value above most others about 9/111. When I showed him the videos of 9/11, the planes hitting and the buildings falling (which, for some reason, he'd avoided watching, he's a very patriotic Vietnam vet) and he pointed out the very same things that the "wingnut" Loose Change guys pointed out.

"What are those puffs coming out of the building on the lower floors?"

"There's no way that it would 'fold' that straight and that fast without the supports below being weakened & moved out of the way."

"If those floors weren't weakened, the building would have just fallen to one side. The steel structure beneath the impact point isn't weakened enough by the fire above, or the impact, to make the whole building fall straight down. They've been holding that structure up for years, why would they suddenly fail now? It fell too fast. Someone demolished those buildings. I don't know who, but someone did."

Then I told him that WTC 7 fell from "fire". He just watched it once, said "Bull----", & went to get another beer.

He had completely different things to say about the Pentagon. He's the one that showed me how to do the math on how much fuel would have been on the plane & he just asked me "Do you think that 7,500 gallons of JP5 going off would cause that little damage? & if the wings or tail were torn off before, you would have seen a HUGE fireball somewhere, and obvious evidence."
My dad is most definitely NOT A "WING NUT". He doesn't buy the government story of 9/11 at all. He did the final inspection on Seattle's Columbia Center before anyone was allowed to move in:

I asked him if a plane hit in the top in the top 1/4 or even 1/3 of that building, would it just fall straight down on itself, forget falling as fast as BOTH of the WTC towers. He said "Oh, no. No way."
& when I showed him the NYC firemen saying that while they were downstairs they heard what could have only been demo going off, & saw evidence of demo going off, he said,"Firemen in a major city have to be on-sight whenever they demolish a building. If they say it was demo, then it was. Everything they said they saw would have meant 'demo' to me if I was there. Once you've seen, heard, & smelled the evidence of demo, you know it when you see it."
Of course, some would like to just disregard the interviews with the NYC firemen as "not expert". I'm not one of them. Some would like to disregard the opinion of my father, since they don't know him. I'm not one of them.
This is why I'm not interested in debate. To me, there is no debate. The gov't story is BS. I don't buy all the conspiracy theory crap, I just want to know what REALLY happened, & I want the people who are REALLY responsible to be found and I want them to pay, not just with their lives but with their souls.

'Nuff said.

 

[Mr. E]

& when I showed him the NYC firemen saying that while they were downstairs they heard what could have only been demo going off, & saw evidence of demo going off, he said,"Firemen in a major city have to be on-sight whenever they demolish a building. If they say it was demo, then it was. Everything they said they saw would have meant 'demo' to me if I was there. Once you've seen, heard, & smelled the evidence of demo, you know it when you see it."
Of course, some would like to just disregard the interviews with the NYC firemen as "not expert". I'm not one of them. Some would like to disregard the opinion of my father, since they don't know him. I'm not one of them.
This is why I'm not interested in debate. To me, there is no debate. The gov't story is BS.

First of all, why should we trust someone who says that their father said something? And why should we give credence to someone who was never even at the WTC at any point? But you would like to build your side up as some sort of expert.

Second, take a look at the following.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bomb_in_the_building.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/bombs___not_literally.html

Oh, so it looks like they really were not saying that they saw demolitions in the building. You heard what you wanted to hear and changed things from "it sounded like a bomb going off" to "we heard bombs going off" and reported it to your father. He took that and expanded on it as well. This is how these things get started. If you take the time to get to the facts and examine the other side, you find out that things are not only what you think. So, considering just how I was easily able to give another side to the story of your account, don't you think that maybe you should open up your mind a bit more?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

What you REALLY want/need is someone to "prove" the WTC was a demo job. Otherwise why regurgitate all the same disproven internet pap about "smoke puffs" etc?

There is no way that the WTC was "wired up" for demo. I have a grunts experience with demo and its not like a Bourne movie. You dont just go around slapping little packages of C4 and little black boxes w/ red lights on them on every available I beam.