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

[Blotan Hunka]

This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly “controlled demolition” at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."

http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

Re-read. Ill take the word of demo experts over an arson investigator, since the WTC wasnt an arson.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

:erg:

 

[Mr. E]

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.

Good points.

Here is the idea that really makes me giggle....

Think about this for a second.... You are a guy planning a very precise chain of explosions to bring down a building without anyone finding them. This is probably a very delicate thing for you. You can't risk things going wrong and the explosives not going off, or being discovered. If something is found, everything you have worked for will collapse.

So, considering that.... you then arrange for a plane to hit both of the buildings you are going to blow up. There is a raging fire and tons of people streaming in and out of the buildings to fight it.

Now that is silly. Just the idea of a fire being in the building that you are going to blow would cause a lot of trouble for things going off as planned. Having an airplane hit and leak jet fuel would be a nightmare for anyone hoping that things would go off as planned. How would you know that they would not knock something off and things would not go boom? Or maybe something like a block of C-4 would be blown out of the building and picked up by one of the many people milling around? Why would you bet that someone like a firefighter would not see and photograph your hastily- placed charges?

Pulling off an explosion is difficult under the best circumstances. Things go wrong sometimes and you have to deal with stuff that did not go off. And that is when you take time and have the ability to work out in the open. If you are trying to keep things secret, and are rushed and you have planes hitting the building and fires breaking out you would have to be some sort of super human to be sure that things would go as planned and not fizzle out somehow.

 

[Doc_Jude]

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?

We obviously haven't seen the same interviews of NYC firemen, they heard and smelled the explosives, and saw the effects in the lobbies and the subbasements. & I am no expert, but I trust my father over you.
AND THAT IS WHY I'M NOT INTERESTED IN DEBATING 9/11 HERE. As I said before. I won't be contributing again. You believe what you like. I'll do the same.
I love the disgustingly impersonal medium that is the Internet.

 

[Makalakumu]

Mr. E, if you read the official account, in the 9/11 comission report, it says that most of the debris ended up inside the building. There is a thread on MT that discusses this.

One of the things that I think that you and BH really need to think about is your own biases. I understand and applaud your level of skepticism and incredulity, but I feel that the personal nature that many of your comments strike is indicative of strong bias.

The problem this can have is the same thing that happens to many conspiracy theorists. They pick and choose peices of information that make that bias a self fulfilling prophacy. And that is one of the major problems that I have with many of the links that you are posting. Those websites have a clear bias and they aren't dealing with all of the information...only the stuff that shows what they want.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't read what is being posted. On the contrary, I think they do make some good points. On the other hand there are some unanswered questions that the "wingnuts" raise that I feel have merit also.

The conclusions one draws from this may not be the ones that the writers intended, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, Mr. E, don't assume that I haven't done my homework on this. I think you'd be surprised to find out exactly how much time I've spent reading information on both sides.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Good points.

Here is the idea that really makes me giggle....

Think about this for a second.... You are a guy planning a very precise chain of explosions to bring down a building without anyone finding them. This is probably a very delicate thing for you. You can't risk things going wrong and the explosives not going off, or being discovered. If something is found, everything you have worked for will collapse.

So, considering that.... you then arrange for a plane to hit both of the buildings you are going to blow up. There is a raging fire and tons of people streaming in and out of the buildings to fight it.

Now that is silly. Just the idea of a fire being in the building that you are going to blow would cause a lot of trouble for things going off as planned. Having an airplane hit and leak jet fuel would be a nightmare for anyone hoping that things would go off as planned. How would you know that they would not knock something off and things would not go boom? Or maybe something like a block of C-4 would be blown out of the building and picked up by one of the many people milling around? Why would you bet that someone like a firefighter would not see and photograph your hastily- placed charges?

Pulling off an explosion is difficult under the best circumstances. Things go wrong sometimes and you have to deal with stuff that did not go off. And that is when you take time and have the ability to work out in the open. If you are trying to keep things secret, and are rushed and you have planes hitting the building and fires breaking out you would have to be some sort of super human to be sure that things would go as planned and not fizzle out somehow.

Not to mention that bringing down a building in a percise manner requires removing and or cutting improtant structural members before explosives even enter into the mix. The types of charge and the wiring and timing of detonation must be precise. This is a huge undertaking. Were not talking about spooks with briefcases and hollywood C4 blocks with fancy digital timers....why do covert bombs always have number timers on them anyway? Nobody ever sees them....but I digress.

Like I said earlier. Ill take the word of professional demolitions experts over internet wingnuts. Its not my problem that some nutters wont accept that planes flying into buildings are FAR more plausible for the WTC collapse than a controled demo (covert at that) will EVER be. Its obvious that no professional explination of the collapse will ever satisfy the wingnuts. All the engineers and sources that support the plane/building theory are gvt. hacks who are "in" on the conspiracy. There is no winning with the wingnuts short of folding your own tin-foil hat. Because my mind isnt open enough to let the little CIA ninja demolition experts in...well I guess Ill just have to live with that.

Like ive said before, the problem with the wingnut theories is that they are dependent on this "controlled demo", missile into the Pentagon, stuff. If some HUMINT evidence of contacts between Atta and his crew and some US intel agencies were to come to light, I MAY begin to wonder a bit. But that scenario is still plane/building.

I guess that makes me a gvt stooge whos job it is is to stifle the "true believers" on the internet. I hope that big payment made the swiss bank account. Now its off to fight the moon landing wingnuts.

 

[Makalakumu]

Not to mention that bringing down a building in a percise manner requires removing and or cutting improtant structural members before explosives even enter into the mix. The types of charge and the wiring and timing of detonation must be precise. This is a huge undertaking. Were not talking about spooks with briefcases and hollywood C4 blocks with fancy digital timers....why do covert bombs always have number timers on them anyway? Nobody ever sees them....but I digress.

Like I said earlier. Ill take the word of professional demolitions experts over internet wingnuts. Its not my problem that some nutters wont accept that planes flying into buildings are FAR more plausible for the WTC collapse than a controled demo (covert at that) will EVER be. Its obvious that no professional explination of the collapse will ever satisfy the wingnuts. All the engineers and sources that support the plane/building theory are gvt. hacks who are "in" on the conspiracy. There is no winning with the wingnuts short of folding your own tin-foil hat. Because my mind isnt open enough to let the little CIA ninja demolition experts in...well I guess Ill just have to live with that.

Like ive said before, the problem with the wingnut theories is that they are dependent on this "controlled demo", missile into the Pentagon, stuff. If some HUMINT evidence of contacts between Atta and his crew and some US intel agencies were to come to light, I MAY begin to wonder a bit. But that scenario is still plane/building.

I guess that makes me a gvt stooge whos job it is is to stifle the "true believers" on the internet. I hope that big payment made the swiss bank account. Now its off to fight the moon landing wingnuts.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, BH. I don't think I'd even give this a second thought if it weren't for organizations like this...

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

These really are people with credentials and opinions that deserve consideration IMO. It doesn't mean that they are right, but I think we should read what they have to say...

 

[Doc_Jude]

Forgot something...

I asked my father, a retired Seattle fireman/arson investigator/building inspector/insurance investigator/& LEADING HAZMAT SPECIALIST FOR SFD & KING COUNTY, & a man whose opinion I value above most others about 9/11...

 

[Mr. E]

We obviously haven't seen the same interviews of NYC firemen, they heard and smelled the explosives, and saw the effects in the lobbies and the subbasements.

Possibly because those interviews never existed? You would think that those interviews would be all over youtube and the conspiracy sites if they were really as you say you remember them.

Here is something you might want to read over.

http://debunking911.com/quotes.htm

Seriously, 300 plus firefighters died on 9-11. If there were survivors that really thought it was because of explosives set by someone, don't you think they would be raising hell through their union or otherwise?

And before you try to say that they were shut up, read the link. It deals with that and probably any other excuse you can come up with.

 

[Mr. E]

One of the things that I think that you and BH really need to think about is your own biases.

This coming from a guy who has started several threads here trying to push the idea that there was a government conspiracy.

You should follow your own advice. And maybe talk it over with a proffesional mental health specialist.

After all, after spending all the time you have trying to convince people here that you have done a lot of research and know more than the typical sheep out there, what kind of blow would it be to admit you were wrong, you were not as smart as you thought and you wasted a lot of time?

As for me, I remain a sceptic and demand proof. I prefer simpler plots to more complicated ones. I know that they are more likely to succeed without discovery.

And I really have to wonder why all these conspiracy theorists can't seem to be taken seriously by any respectable media. They have to set up web sites. I looked into the background of a few and always found that they are not as qualified as they try to present themselves. Scholars for 9-11 Truth comes to mind. :uhyeah:

If there was something, I would expect that sources like El Pais, The Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde and The New York Times would be picking up the story and not some web site. They can't all be under the thumbs of the neocons.

I have seen a lot of stuff so far and none of it stands up to my standard of proof. I am not going to lower my standards, so others are going to have to try to provide real proof instead of appealing to me to open my mind or trying to say their authority should be respected. No proof, no go.

 

[Big Don]

Is Popular Mechanics a puppet of the government? Is that why they debunked all the conspiracy theory BS?

 

[Makalakumu]

You should follow your own advice. And maybe talk it over with a proffesional mental health specialist.

After all, after spending all the time you have trying to convince people here that you have done a lot of research and know more than the typical sheep out there, what kind of blow would it be to admit you were wrong, you were not as smart as you thought and you wasted a lot of time?

This sort of rhetoric is not very polite and it doesn't advance the discourse I attempted to make with you in good faith.

I have seen a lot of stuff so far and none of it stands up to my standard of proof. I am not going to lower my standards, so others are going to have to try to provide real proof instead of appealing to me to open my mind or trying to say their authority should be respected. No proof, no go.

Well, I asked before and recieved a fairly diffuse answer, so I shall ask again. What, exactly, would qualify as proof for you? What specifically would cause you to reconsider? BH gave a couple of concrete examples and he pretty much said that he absolutely rules out any scenario that doesn't include planes crashing into buildings as they ultimate causative factor. Fair enough. Now, I know exactly where he stands.

Where do you stand? What, specifically, would cause you to reconsider? What would you rule out completely?

 

[Mr. E]

This sort of rhetoric is not very polite and it doesn't advance the discourse I attempted to make with you in good faith.

My response to you was also in good faith, perhaps more than yours.

It seems natural and polite to check with yourself before you ask others to do the same. If you want to say that others should check their biases, then as a person who has started several threads here promoting the idea that there is vast conspiracy, you should follow your own advice. You brought up the idea before me. But you have the greater history of trying to promote your theories than I.

And I already gave an example of what I consider proof and you responded to it. It is not diffuse as far as I can see. Go ahead and read post # 191 again as well as your next post after it. Now you seem to be trying to say that I have not given you an idea of what I demand to amend my beliefs. Do I really have to repeat myself? I already do not think that you are posting here in good faith, but rather a desire to push your beliefs in any way that might be accepted. Do you really want me to give concrete examples of why I think this based on your past posting history- or are you going to again talk about how I am not being polite by pointing out the truth?

I want something that can't be shot down or have a reasonable explanation. If something may be one way or the other, I will accept the one that matches what Osama Bin Laden is saying in his videos- that he did 9-11 to attack the US. If you want to convince me, think of the type of proof that might convince me that the Moon landings were faked. Are we talking the Daily Mirror of London, or some web site? Because considering all the effort all the web sites that promote the conspiracy put into convincing others, I can't seriously consider that they would not try to get a legitimate source like The New Zealand Herald to pick up their story. The only reasonable thing I can think of is that their levels of "proof" do not make the cut with any source that has to worry about its reputation.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

What I have discovered about the so called "experts" who buy the wingnut theory is that the majority of them are "experts" in every field except structural engineering and demolitions. Because someone has a degree in astro physics, english lit or elecrtical engineering doesnt mean they have any clout on how the WTC could have been wired up.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1230517.html

Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.

Fortunately, facts can be checked. For our special report, PM compiled a list of the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists, assertions that are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. These claims all involve fields that are part of PM's core expertise--structural engineering, aviation, military technology and science.

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.

Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Popular Mechanics gathered over 300 experts actually in the fields pertaining to the subject. Why does a handful of wingnuts superceed them? Would you buy their story if the roles were reversed and all the Popular Mechanics argued the conspiracy theory? I think not. Its part of the Conspiracy Theorist psychosis. If a handful of people disagree with the majority, there has to have been a cover-up. There will ALWAYS be a handful of dissenters on any subject. Why are some seen as important while others are discounted? Because they support your already held belief. The American Society of Civil Engineers doesnt buy the demo explination fer Crissakes. But because some obscure professor of Astro Physics dissents, they are dismissed as "government stooges".

If this were about global warming and a small group of "experts" dissented with the consensus. It would be a 180 from this topic, thats for shure

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".

From the Time article that started this thread:

There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.

 

[TimoS]

The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".

Really? Christ, sometimes I really don't know whether to laugh or cry and hearing that from someone would surely qualify as such a moment

 

[Makalakumu]

The latest one about 9/11 making the internet rounds is "proof" that nobody actually saw any planes strike the WTC on 9/11. That what we saw on TV was "movie magic".

It's things like these that make me really think that I may need to retract any doubt that I may have...

 

[Makalakumu]

What I have discovered about the so called "experts" who buy the wingnut theory is that the majority of them are "experts" in every field except structural engineering and demolitions.

That isn't entirely true now. One of the links I posted a while back was an organization of architects and structural engineers who were formulating aruments against the official story.

 

[Makalakumu]

It seems natural and polite to check with yourself before you ask others to do the same. If you want to say that others should check their biases, then as a person who has started several threads here promoting the idea that there is vast conspiracy, you should follow your own advice. You brought up the idea before me. But you have the greater history of trying to promote your theories than I.

Who says that I haven't contemplated my own biases? I look at them all of the time.

And since when does asking questions, discussing ideas and arguing their merits qualify as "pushing" one's theories?

And I already gave an example of what I consider proof and you responded to it. It is not diffuse as far as I can see. Go ahead and read post # 191 again as well as your next post after it.

I believe that my next post politely asked if you would provide some specific concrete examples of things that would cause you to reconsider. My comment that your post was diffuse was because you left it up to me to imagine what you think. I wanted to hear what you think, specifically.

Now you seem to be trying to say that I have not given you an idea of what I demand to amend my beliefs. Do I really have to repeat myself? I already do not think that you are posting here in good faith, but rather a desire to push your beliefs in any way that might be accepted. Do you really want me to give concrete examples of why I think this based on your past posting history- or are you going to again talk about how I am not being polite by pointing out the truth?

I think you need to get off the anonymous power trip. There's no need to toss out threats in a simple discussion. This sort of behavior is possibly a violation of MT policy.

If you want to convince me, think of the type of proof that might convince me that the Moon landings were faked.

I'm not going to imagine what you think. Please give some concrete examples. Despite the abuse, I am still morbidly curious as to what you think. I'm really trying to understand where you and other people are coming from.

 

[Mr. E]

That isn't entirely true now. One of the links I posted a while back was an organization of architects and structural engineers who were formulating aruments against the official story.

Are you certain of the qualifications of these people? I have read your posts about the scholars for 9-11 truth. You took the stance that those guys were beyond question at first and that others should defer to their greater knowledge. Then it turns out that their qualifications were pretty much worthless and the engineering department of the university of the lead guy said his stuff was full of holes.

Now you seem to have just swallowed the line of another group like this.