Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Year Zero]

They did? Yeah, you mentioned that, planes hit the building...right...fires....gotcha, official mouthpiece. Those feet you are talking about could be anything, namely a pile of rubble, so your assertion that the whole bottom of the building must be demolished is wrong.

You claimed that the buildings fell to fast, a number of your sources say this too. They claim that it would take explosives to do that, to take out the support of EVERY floor and put it into free fall. Ergo you if you support this you admit that every floor would have to be wired.

You tell me, oh ye investigator. I would assume if you are interested in debunking guys like that you would check to see if they have sources...he claims that all of his material is backed up by official documentation "110%" which I assume to mean, that if I were to look into his kooky claims I might actually find the documentation he is talking about.

Oh wow, he CLAIMS that!! And 110% why that's, MORE THAN 100%!! So he sure must be credible!

ha, I am advocating nothing, except a proper investigation.

You are not in the proper position to judge the initial one inadequate. Also, it is likely that if there were an official investigation again, you would just claim it was not credible.

Once more, they didn't engineer anything, as far as I can tell they knew something was going to happen and let it, which to me is just as bad. Bill Clinton was the subject of a Right Wing smear campaign, or didn't you know that?

You mean they let the terrorists rig the buildings with demolition charges and use remote control planes to fly....no forget it.

My facts straight? Excuse me? If Osama bin Laden is not the one most directly responsible for this then who is? Your contradicting yourself here. The Cole bombing was a boat that ran up along side and exploded, the us embassy was a truck bomb, as well as the Khobar towers, none of those are nearly as complex as this, 4 highjackings and years of planning??? Sure they could highjack them, but how many highjackers went to flight school?

I am not contradicting yourself, you simply know nothing of Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is for financial support, intelligence gathering, and training of loosely affiliated Wahhabist organizations and small cells. Bin Laden does not hand down orders on operations.

How many hijackers in the past, before 9-11 actually TOOK the wheel of the plane and piloted it? How many people do you need to pilot a plane? How qualified are you to explain how complicated a hijacking is since these things have happened a lot since WWII?

Another thing that has stuck with me is that the fuel burning being the cause for the collapse was talked about by bin Laden in his supposed confession, where he stated that he knew the fuel would bring the towers down in the exact way they fell....however...most experts contend that it was a freak occurrance that shouldn't have happened even though it did.

An outright lie. Qualified experts in that field DID expect the fire to contribute to the collapse.

And you know this how? So all the mujahadeen bull, and training by the cia never happened either then did it? The funny thing is that it did, and he was, although most likely not now....most likely dead....

Trained by the CIA? No, most Mujahadeen were trained by the Pakistani ISID, which received money and arms from the CIA and a number of countries. Bin Laden took care of his own training programs through his Services Bureau(Maktyab al-Khidimat or MAK). Any CIA support going to the MAK would have first come through the ISID.

Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly. Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.

Excuse me? Thermite is not a demolitions explosive. It is an incindiery used to destroy military equipment. I have personally seen Thermite in action and if you think that someone would use Thermite to demolish a building, especially if they wanted to do so secretly, you would have to be insane.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Ah good old Alex Jones. Alex is not a bad man, and I've always felt that he thinks he is telling the truth (as he sees it). He does a lot of good work for the community (at least he used to, I haven't been to Austin in years). He used to actually expose corruption in the local political arena. But ever since he went national he has gotten weirder and weirder.

Oh and by the way, "documenting" a conspiracy theory is easy. Since any good conspiracy theory is a combination of weird facts and extreme conjecture. The first half is easy to prove and the other half is just opinion (and you know what they say about those). Here I'll start my own conspiracy theory:

The US democracy has been usurped! An elite group of Irishmen are secretly controlling the United States and are slowing transforming it into a Mr. Potato Head Factory!

For evidence I supply the fact that the president is not elected by the people (at least not directly). That Mr. Potato Head's are being manufactured and sold at an ever increasing rate. That Irishmen people are over represented in police and fire departments.

Run for the hills!

LLH

 

[love]

Yet, when experts in the fields of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy examine the evidence, and come to the overwhelming conclusion that no demolitions were used. The CT answer is always - they can’t be believed, because they’re part of the government cover-up.

So how is it that the people who work in the fields daily as their trained profession are wrong, and people under the most extreme duress possible making snap judgments about subjects that they have little or no training on, are correct?

I have read accounts of people who were close to the action, who are appalled by the betrayal and lies of their own government.

One assumption you are making here is that the media gives you an accurate impression of what these professionals experienced and believe. But how could they...

Excerpt from http://www.rense.com/general48/ciwc.htm
Court Denies Access To Firefighter's 911 WTC Opinions

Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phonecalls made to 911 on that day. Before the records of the oral histories are released to the press, all mention of the opinions and
recommendations of those interviewed will be deleted first, so the press will only get the interviewees' "personal expressions of feelings". In other words, if a firefighter who was interviewed said, "I heard what sounded like explosions and I think it was bombs that took down those towers, it was all so horrible", the press will merely get the portion that says: "it was all so horrible".

And to be sure this isn't made up, you can read the judgement here:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_00091.htm

 

[kookbreaker]

I have read accounts of people who were close to the action, who are appalled by the betrayal and lies of their own government.

One assumption you are making here is that the media gives you an accurate impression of what these professionals experienced and believe. But how could they...

Excerpt from http://www.rense.com/general48/ciwc.htm
Court Denies Access To Firefighter's 911 WTC Opinions

And to be sure this isn't made up, you can read the judgement here:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_00091.htm

I don't buy Rense's take on the matter.

The NYFD made it clear they were not happy with releasing the tapes since they were concerned that ghoulish media elements would abuse them, a violation of firefighters' privacy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0034.htm

Eight families who wanted disclosure were not challenged by the NYFD.

I really have a hard time buying the idea that the NYFD is in on the conspiracy. The idea that the managers, who usually come from the ranks, would callously toss away hundreds of firefighter's lives just for some vauge and undefined political gain by the President goes beyond pale for CTs.

Are there angry NYFD firefighters? Certainly. 9/11 exposed many adminstrative, procedural and equipment failures that are likely inexcusable. But that does not make for a conspiracy.

 

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[thesyntaxera]

You claimed that the buildings fell to fast, a number of your sources say this too. They claim that it would take explosives to do that, to take out the support of EVERY floor and put it into free fall. Ergo you if you support this you admit that every floor would have to be wired.

no, I didn't personally claim anything, and yes a number of sources do claim that. I never said I supported anything.

Oh wow, he CLAIMS that!! And 110% why that's, MORE THAN 100%!! So he sure must be credible!

yeah, thats what I was implying ...or I could have been saying that he claims that he has documentation to back it up, and why not use your time as a dedicated skeptic to look into the matter....instead of trying to prove how much you assume you know to me...

You are not in the proper position to judge the initial one inadequate. Also, it is likely that if there were an official investigation again, you would just claim it was not credible.

and you are how? no, if there was a proper investigation I would not claim it to be tainted. I would say, awesome...so what happened?

You mean they let the terrorists rig the buildings with demolition charges and use remote control planes to fly....no forget it.

No, thats not what I mean. What I mean is terrorists could have gotten access, that much is certain, so why couldn't they have planted explosives, and flown the planes into the building, detonating explosives after the hits?

I am not contradicting yourself, you simply know nothing of Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is for financial support, intelligence gathering, and training of loosely affiliated Wahhabist organizations and small cells. Bin Laden does not hand down orders on operations.

I think what you mean to say is myself...because you can't be contradicting yourself...but anyway...if Osama bin Laden isn't doing anything really, then why was HE responsible for 9/11? If I simply know nothing of bin Laden then what makes you SO certain? Did you read the Wiki article or something?

How many hijackers in the past, before 9-11 actually TOOK the wheel of the plane and piloted it? How many people do you need to pilot a plane? How qualified are you to explain how complicated a hijacking is since these things have happened a lot since WWII?

Your making highjackings sound like the plague of the airport industry...all I am saying is don't underestimate what it takes to fly a jet at 600+ into not one but three buildings.

An outright lie. Qualified experts in that field DID expect the fire to contribute to the collapse.

Did they? How about this...we can play a game, you give me a list of "experts" that fully expected that the buildings would collapse, and I'll give you an equally long list of "experts" that disagree...fair enough?

Trained by the CIA? No, most Mujahadeen were trained by the Pakistani ISID, which received money and arms from the CIA and a number of countries. Bin Laden took care of his own training programs through his Services Bureau(Maktyab al-Khidimat or MAK). Any CIA support going to the MAK would have first come through the ISID.

Ok, so it was a bit of generalization, as far as we know...even though we don't really know. Either way, the CIA paid for the creation of Al-Qaeda.

Excuse me? Thermite is not a demolitions explosive. It is an incindiery used to destroy military equipment. I have personally seen Thermite in action and if you think that someone would use Thermite to demolish a building, especially if they wanted to do so secretly, you would have to be insane.

A rag might stop up your running orifice dribble...thermite has many uses not just one, namely you can use it anyway you like.

Thermite reactions have many uses. It was originally used for repair welding in-place such things as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. Thermite grenades are used in war to destroy sensitive equipment or documents when at imminent risk of capture by the enemy. Thermite grenades and bombs have been used in combat as incendiary devices, able to burn through heavy armor or other fireproof barriers. Thermite can also be used for quickly cutting or welding metal such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. The mixture has been sold for many years under the trademark name Thermit for use in railroad welding.

This type of reaction when used to purify the ores of some metals is called the Thermite process. An adaptation of the thermite reaction, used to obtain pure uranium, was developed as part of the Manhattan Project at Ames Laboratory under the direction of Frank Spedding. It is sometimes called the Ames process.

The thermite reaction can take place by accident in industrial locations where abrasive grinding and cutting wheels are used with ferrous metals. Using aluminium in this situation produces an admixture of oxides which is capable of violent explosive reaction.

Thermite is the "anarchist-pyro" tool of choice as it is hot enough to melt completely through every part of a car engine and the concrete below.

 

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

waiting.

Any event could conceiveably have sinister motives. Any event could have explinations that are off the wall. What differentiates mental illness from sanity is being able to rationally explain the whys and wherefores of events.

Without these explinations speculations about 9/11 are nice to know but meaningless. So I ask again, who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[EatatJoes]

Forgive my laziness. I have not read through all of the posts here. The first few posts had questions regarding the fact that the plane hit in the exact same spots that were convenient for the explosives to go off is a poor excuse for rejecting the conspiracy claim. Those explosives are remotely set off. So besides the fact that somebody, somewhere was willing to set off those explosives killing hundreds of people doesn't negate the fact that the plane didn't have to hit the building at an "exact" place. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

 

[Year Zero]

Forgive my laziness. I have not read through all of the posts here. The first few posts had questions regarding the fact that the plane hit in the exact same spots that were convenient for the explosives to go off is a poor excuse for rejecting the conspiracy claim. Those explosives are remotely set off. So besides the fact that somebody, somewhere was willing to set off those explosives killing hundreds of people doesn't negate the fact that the plane didn't have to hit the building at an "exact" place. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

No what we are saying is that when you rig a building for demolition, it is a long, time-consuming process and is not as predictable as some people think. So whatever calculations that you can actually do are literally blown to hell once you crash a plane into the building at some point. Then there is the risk of the building not coming down properly if at all, due to severed detcord, prematurely exploded charges, etc.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Forgive my laziness. I have not read through all of the posts here. The first few posts had questions regarding the fact that the plane hit in the exact same spots that were convenient for the explosives to go off is a poor excuse for rejecting the conspiracy claim. Those explosives are remotely set off. So besides the fact that somebody, somewhere was willing to set off those explosives killing hundreds of people doesn't negate the fact that the plane didn't have to hit the building at an "exact" place. I'm only playing devil's advocate.

If you'd read the thread, you'd have read that demolishing big buildings is not at all a simple matter even for professionals. So while the idea that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives is very silly to anyone who knows anything about demolitions, the idea that the WTC could have been wired so that a remote operator could blow it up and make it look like a natural collapse no matter where a plane hit is just off the planet.

I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

Well, hit us with the major points that disturb you then. Hopefully someone here can deal with them, or at least tell you that the info you need is somewhere earlier in the thread.

 

[Ashles]

So let me get this straight.

Two fully fuel laden 747s crash into two of the tallest buildings in the US. This is witnessed by many peple and multiple TV cameras.
The buildings catch fire and subsequently collapse.
A known terrorist group that had the ability and motive accepts responsibility.

And some people then question this?

I don't anymore understand why we are dignifying thesyntaxera's comments with responses.

Either s/he is a paranoid conspiracist in which case s/he requires professional help. Or s/he is a troll in which case s/he requires total absence of attention.
Either way this has got ridiculous in terms of response.
Thesyntaxera is never going to accept mere logic and evidence.

It's time to let them continue in the mad little word they exist in, perhaps handing out leaflets in their area that might convince the emotionally confused that their theory has a vague base on which to build.

Once you start to ignore evidence and logic then you have entered an entirely pointless area of debate.
Bye bye.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I watched a "documentary" on 9/11 and was very disturbed. I was hoping that the level minds here at the forum could set my freaked out mind straight.

yeah their doing wonders. I tried the same approach to finding out the popular skeptical answers, these guys reponded as if somebody took a dump in their cereal.

 

[thesyntaxera]

So let me get this straight.

Two fully fuel laden 747s crash into two of the tallest buildings in the US. This is witnessed by many peple and multiple TV cameras.
The buildings catch fire and subsequently collapse.
A known terrorist group that had the ability and motive accepts responsibility.

And some people then question this?

I don't anymore understand why we are dignifying thesyntaxera's comments with responses.

Either s/he is a paranoid conspiracist in which case s/he requires professional help. Or s/he is a troll in which case s/he requires total absence of attention.
Either way this has got ridiculous in terms of response.
Thesyntaxera is never going to accept mere logic and evidence.

It's time to let them continue in the mad little word they exist in, perhaps handing out leaflets in their area that might convince the emotionally confused that their theory has a vague base on which to build.

Once you start to ignore evidence and logic then you have entered an entirely pointless area of debate.
Bye bye.

thank you for that little gem oh logical one. I HAVE NOT OFFERED A SINGLE THEORY!!!!!...you all are reacting as if dispelling these things might shatter my world view....sorry, I can't foresee that happening.

The only theory I suggested, was that if a proper investigation had been done we might have uncovered enough shady dealings to have prevented some of our more prominent recent mistakes in foreign policy, or at least a re-election.

I would like to think the "evidence" you support wasn't cherry picked, but I'm not convinced, and your pathetic attempts to cling to a skeleton of an explanation, to extrapolate, to guess, to rationalize don't help....

If you can't see that skepticism is a just a different shade of grey when compared to conspiracy theory you need to get your glasses checked...both rely on the same type of logic, it's just that CT's revolve around the sinister, and skeptics keep things in a rosy painted hue.

Prefer to believe whatever you want as it doesn't really matter either way, however to assume superiority because of some axe you have to grind is just pompous arrogance that will ultimately betray you.


So, a list of experts please

an explanation as to why I can't see a photo of a plane hitting the pentagon

an explanation as to why a deductive investigation wasn't done

a good reason not to release 6,000 sealed photo's

an explanation as to the reasons for Osama bin Laden and Iraq to be responsible when according to Year Zero they had little to do with it

if you can't answer these questions with certainty...ie facts...not guesses, not rationalizations, not tired inductive rhetoric, then I don't see how you can support any story...because obviously you don't have complete picture to begin with.

 

[CurtC]

thesyntaxera, you first started using the words "deductive" and "inductive" in an unusual way, and said that I can't understand science if I don't understand what you're saying. Then eight pages later, someone posts an explanation of what you mean when you use those words. I said that I'm not a philosopher, but I do understand how science is done, and the investigation was done like proper science.

I have a hard time imagining how you could conduct an investigation into an event like this and not have some idea of an explanation during the investigation. In science, some initial data points to a hypothesis, then more work is done to see if there is any data that would falisfy that hypothesis. That's what was done with 9/11. The initial indications were that Al Quaeda terrorists hijacked airplanes, crashed them into buildings, and the WTC collapsed due to the fire. The investigating panel then took this idea and went through all the data, seeing if anything would falsify the idea. They found nothing that would go against it.

Instead of complaining about the investigation using some abstract philosophical argument which isn't valid anyway, the proper way to argue against it would be to point out some data that would falsify their conclusion. Do you have anything like that?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

Ah hah!!! By asking this, it is apparent you are in on The Conspiracy(tm). You are trying to throw us dedicated truth seekers off the trail. Are you Jewish by chance? And a banker?

 

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, you first started using the words "deductive" and "inductive" in an unusual way...

No, I used them in the exact sense of thier meaning, you cannot prove skeptical claims at this point, just as you can't prove CT claims because they share the same flaw, they are based on inductive reasoning which isn't really consider scienctific in the first place.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=induction
The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.

Whats strange about that? This is how skeptics have arrived at conclusions in this instance, just as in the investigation. There is no way they could have known bin Laden and Al-qaeda were behind it on the day of the attack. If there was information to suggest this beforehand to aide in this deduction, then it only bolsters the CT claims of conspiracy even more.

and said that I can't understand science if I don't understand what you're saying. Then eight pages later, someone posts an explanation of what you mean when you use those words. I said that I'm not a philosopher, but I do understand how science is done, and the investigation was done like proper science.

No, apparently you don't, because no, it wasn't, the most shallow examination of the official explanation, and the preceding "investigation" reveals this. Being a philosopher has nothing to do with it either.

I have a hard time imagining how you could conduct an investigation into an event like this and not have some idea of an explanation during the investigation.

In any deductive investigation the facts inform your hypothesis, but first you have to gather facts before you can form a theory.

In science, some initial data points to a hypothesis, then more work is done to see if there is any data that would falisfy that hypothesis. That's what was done with 9/11. The initial indications were that Al Quaeda terrorists hijacked airplanes, crashed them into buildings, and the WTC collapsed due to the fire. The investigating panel then took this idea and went through all the data, seeing if anything would falsify the idea. They found nothing that would go against it.

See above again...and the fact that there is an entire legitimate movement outside the cospiracy circles that wants answers to these same questions doesn't faze you either suppose? There is literally tons of circumstantial evidence, conflicting reports, and surrounding circumstances that were completely ignored.

Instead of complaining about the investigation using some abstract philosophical argument which isn't valid anyway, the proper way to argue against it would be to point out some data that would falsify their conclusion. Do you have anything like that

Instead of wasting your time on a post like this which you obviously can't restrain yourself from, why don't you think of something to add to the conversation. My abstract argument is fairly staight forward, and not philosophical in the least. It states, the investigation sucked, the results are not reliable to form a conclusion.

There is plenty to falsify, but first you need to read up on what it is you think you are saying...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

 

[delphi_ote]

yeah their doing wonders. I tried the same approach to finding out the popular skeptical answers, these guys reponded as if somebody took a dump in their cereal.

I don't know what's more disturbing, the mess that is this post or the fact that I'm quoting the edited version.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I don't know what's more disturbing, the mess that is this post or the fact that I'm quoting the edited version.

ouch, I have no choice but to think you are cool now.

 

[thesyntaxera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_(philosophy)

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

The ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold. or: There is no ice in the Sun.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.


Validity
Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)

In induction there are always many conclusions that can reasonably be related to certain premises. Inductions are open; deductions are closed.

The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of induction, meaning the search for a justification for inductive reasoning, was by the Scotsman David Hume. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday reasoning depends on patterns of repeated experience rather than deductively valid arguments. For example we believe that bread will nourish us because it has in the past, but it is at least conceivable that bread in the future will poison us.

Someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death, said Hume. Instead of unproductive radical skepticism about everything, he advocated a practical skepticism based on common-sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted.

20th Century developments have framed the problem of induction very differently. Rather than a choice about what predictions to make about the future, it can be seen as a choice of what concepts to fit to observation (see the entry for grue) or of what graphs to fit to a set of observed data points.

Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past, but in its broadest sense it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis of what is observed. Inferences about the past from present evidence (e.g. archaeology) count as induction. Induction could also be across space rather than time, e.g. conclusions about the whole universe from what we observe in our galaxy or national economic policy based on local economic performance.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's funny, I could swear that those wikipedia quotes directly contradict your claim to be using "inductive" and "deductive" in their normal English senses.

Who did you think you would fool by this manoeuvre?