Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[richardm]

Steel conducts heat very well. Make of it what you will.

Just as an aside, it's quite common for fires in modern buildings to spread along steel beams. They conduct the heat away from the heart of the fire and when they get hot enough start fires elsewhere in the building. Bad news for the firefighters who can find other fires popping up in expected places.

 

[SirPhilip]

The effect was much like the parlour trick where a martial artist smashes a large stack of tiles or what have you. The mass of debris from the top section smashed straight through every other layer on its way to the ground because if it had enough power to break one it had enough power to break them all. Any energy lost in crumbling one floor was more than made up for by the additional weight of falling debris.

Good point, that addresses much of my suspicion quite nicely.

 

[delphi_ote]

The eyewitness firemen are recorded over the radio as saying that the fire is containable, and controllable...these are the guys inspecting the floors that have been severely affected.

Do you have a source for this information? Of course not. Conspiracy theorists never need to site references. That just slows down the "making crap up" process.

Assuming this is true, what floor were these firefighters on? Higher than the 93rd? Somehow I doubt that. There is no way they were to the most severely affected floors.

But let's assume they were. They're in a burning building with only a few minutes to make a guess. Looking at the facts with the hind sight of history, even if they did make this assessment, they were wrong.

Might I suggest something? Get a hobby.

 

[Year Zero]

Do you have a source for this information? Of course not. Conspiracy theorists never need to site references. That just slows down the "making crap up" process.

Assuming this is true, what floor were these firefighters on? Higher than the 93rd? Somehow I doubt that. There is no way they were to the most severely affected floors.

But let's assume they were. They're in a burning building with only a few minutes to make a guess. Looking at the facts with the hind sight of history, even if they did make this assessment, they were wrong.

Might I suggest something? Get a hobby.

Conspiracy nuts are funny when it comes to eyewitnesses. To use Snyantxcffaaerea's example: An eyewitness account that really says nothing(assuming it happened), basically an initial opinion, must be taken to be true beyond all question. However, eyewitness accounts that contradict this are totally unreliable.

 

[Ed]

It would be interesting to create a CT out of, say, the deaths of those miners. I bet you could find a ton of "inconsistancies" and "odd coincidences" if you looked hard enough.

But, like the WTC CT, it would fail because no one could answer the key questions ...

Who? Why? How was it covered up.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Do you have a source for this information? Of course not. Conspiracy theorists never need to site references. That just slows down the "making crap up" process.

I did post my reference, you just didn't watch it. The fireman in question were angery that they had been silenced and that the tape was sealed, so they released key portions of the tape to the public in violation of the gag order. YOU can hear the entire recording at letsroll.org in the media section and the recording in question is a featured segment of the Alex Jones film martial law.

I have posted all the information above, read and watch, but don't waste your and my time with assinine posts where all you are doing is demonstrating how little you are aware of.

Assuming this is true, what floor were these firefighters on? Higher than the 93rd? Somehow I doubt that. There is no way they were to the most severely affected floors.

really, why don't you listen to the recording yourself? Ooh! That would be too much effort, as you say...if you want to debunk this idea than do the homework.

But let's assume they were. They're in a burning building with only a few minutes to make a guess. Looking at the facts with the hind sight of history, even if they did make this assessment, they were wrong.

Well, good, because they were there.... A few minutes? Looking at the facts? Make a guess? First off, there are no facts that indicate there was structural damage to the core of both towers, and in fact the second impact suggests that the explosion and impact veered to the right and out of the building totally missing the key support columns in the center. The things you call facts are guesses that were made because demolition was a cause that was ruled out day one before any investigation had been done. In fact the commissions investigation didn't begin until 144 days later.

why don't you just watch the two video's and read the links, and no I am not going to cherry pick them for you. You guys are the ones who claimed from page one that you could debunk this and that anyone who believes anything related to the CT claims is crazy.

So prove it.

You all keep saying the burden of evidence is on the CT'er. I say the official story is an conspiracy theory explanation, and since it is woefully lacking in evidence, the burden of proof is on you, because all of the evidence points the other way...the other way being, not the official version.

In fact, it has taken a lot of "inductive" guesses to come to the conlusions of the official version, which to me suggests that the official version does not pass the Occams Razor test.

Might I suggest something? Get a hobby.

Suggestion noted, but I would just like to point out that you are posting here just as I am...maybe a new hobby would be good for you as well.

NOW READ THE LINKS AND WATCH THE VIDEO'S...then attempt to debunk all of Alex's document sources, and all of the claims in the articles at Wiki.

you said you have done this before, so it should be no task for your legion of skepticism.

If you can't...then you have been lying this whole time, and as easy as it is for you to term me dishonest because I misquote a few sources, trust that it will be just as easy for me to label you sychophantic, fraudulant liars if you can't back up a single thing you say.

Conspiracy nuts are funny when it comes to eyewitnesses. To use Snyantxcffaaerea's example: An eyewitness account that really says nothing(assuming it happened), basically an initial opinion, must be taken to be true beyond all question. However, eyewitness accounts that contradict this are totally unreliable.

So what are the eye witness accounts that contradict this? And what about the eyewitness accounts that aren't sure if it was a jet that hit the pentagon, and the multitudes of other eyewitness accounts in this case that contradict one another?

 

[Ed]

What about my Osma quote?

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[delphi_ote]

First off, there are no facts that indicate there was structural damage to the core of both towers...

I'm done talking to you.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm done talking to you.

Good, I am glad for you. Not that you were really talking with me anyway. I grow weary of your pseudo nit-picking as it is. Saying that the towers fell with a picture is in no way proof that the 40 support beams in the center of both towers were damaged enough to allow a fire to bring them down in a manner that looks like a controlled demolition but isn't.

What about my Osma quote?

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

What about it? Why do you keep barking up this tree? Can you verify independently that it was him who said it?

Regardless, it is probably safe to assume he did say it, because he was probably just as shocked at the outcome as we americans were, I think he mentions this.

If you want me to say that I misquoted, I already admitted that. So what does your argument based on the official story win...?

Nothing.

I'm still waiting on all these facts and experts that are supposed to blow me away...still waiting for your refutations of the supplied information...."still waiting" seems to be a theme on this thread.

If you are not posting because you feel that no amount of evidence will convince me, you are mistaken. I welcome any evidence you have, but expect it to be scrutinized in the same way I would look at any conspiracy video or website making claims as outlandish as the official story.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

why don't you just watch the two video's and read the links, and no I am not going to cherry pick them for you. You guys are the ones who claimed from page one that you could debunk this and that anyone who believes anything related to the CT claims is crazy.

No. How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

How hard is that?

If you are going to argue that each individual piece of "evidence" can be explained away, but that the explanations are mutually contradictory, then pick two pieces of evidence such that there is no consistent explanation other than conspiracy.

In fact, it has taken a lot of "inductive" guesses to come to the conlusions of the official version, which to me suggests that the official version does not pass the Occams Razor test.

I suggest that when you do so, you avoid the use of formal logical terminology too.

So what are the eye witness accounts that contradict this? And what about the eyewitness accounts that aren't sure if it was a jet that hit the pentagon, and the multitudes of other eyewitness accounts in this case that contradict one another?

I think you misunderstood.

The woo methodology is to pick a conclusion beforehand, usually "It's all a conspiracy!". Then eyewitness reports that support this conclusion are presented as being absolutely accurate, and eyewitness accounts that do not support this conclusion are dismissed.

For example eyewitnesses who saw the plane which hit the Pentagon, or who cleared up pieces of the shattered aircraft from the impact site are assumed to be liars, fools or government plants if their statements are mentioned by the conspiracy theorist at all. Eyewitnesses who aren't sure if it was a plane or not are assumed to be perfect observers.

Then, amusingly, the conspiracy theorists position themselves as objective investigators and accuse others of doing exactly this kind of biased cherry-picking if they disagree with their conspiracy theory.

 

[delphi_ote]

No. How about you identify what you think are the strongest one or two arguments for a conspiracy, the arguments that are best supported by the evidence and which lead us most directly to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, and explain them to us?

He wants you to find the evidence for him. He wants to convince you the evidence is there with assertions rather than presenting it to you. He doesn't present his own credentials or expertise on this matter. He simply makes assertions (making sure they're vague enough that he can backtrack if necessary, of course) and then demands that you prove him wrong. This person is not intellectually honest.

And this "conversation" is a waste of time. You're talking to a man hell bent on living in a universe where the idea that a jet plane colliding at full speed with a building and causing massive structural failure (while everyone in the world is watching!) is totally ridiculous, but building said building and placing explosives inside to deliberately destroy it for no reason at all is totally logical. Reality isn't good enough for him. This is the worst kind of human being, abusing the memories of thousands of people to get 10 minutes of jollies on the internet. At least the moon landing deniers have the courage to lie about people with enough breath in them to throw the haymaker to the jaw the liars are always asking for.

If he could actually supply us with a reason our leaders would conspire to destroy this building, we might have something. For now, he's just a lunatic accusing people of murder he's never even met without supplying means, motive, or opportunity because a massive building looked strange to him when it fell over. Your wit is wasted on this clown. Put him in the same bin as the Holocaust deniers and move on.

 

[Belz...]

The fireman in question were angery that they had been silenced and that the tape was sealed, so they released key portions of the tape to the public in violation of the gag order.

Who cares what the fireman said, really ? What are you saying ?

Well, good, because they were there.... A few minutes? Looking at the facts? Make a guess? First off, there are no facts that indicate there was structural damage to the core of both towers, and in fact the second impact suggests that the explosion and impact veered to the right and out of the building totally missing the key support columns in the center.

Apparently your knowledge of skyscrapers, fires and impacts is not very impressive. Even if the plane missed the key components of the support structure, the fire could have caused more damage than you realise. After all, the heat didn't need to MELT or somehow BREAK the steel... just heat it enough for it to expand. I'm certain you remember your elementary physics: metals expand when heated.

You guys are the ones who claimed from page one that you could debunk this and that anyone who believes anything related to the CT claims is crazy.

So prove it.

Unnecessary. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, self-defeating. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human behaviour knows that people involved in conspiracies tend to TALK about what they've done. It's been said, in fact, that the best conspiracies work when only one person is involved. In case you didn't get that, at that point it's no longer a conspiracy.

In addition, CTs generally tend to get bigger and bigger as they are debunked, necessitating more and more people, which, as stated above, is self-defeating.

You all keep saying the burden of evidence is on the CT'er. I say the official story is an conspiracy theory explanation, and since it is woefully lacking in evidence, the burden of proof is on you, because all of the evidence points the other way...the other way being, not the official version.

Now you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of science and inquiry in general. The official, accepted story IS the default explanation. Any competing theory bears the burden of proof. How does "all the evidence" point the other way if at least SOME of the evidence doesn't ?

In fact, it has taken a lot of "inductive" guesses to come to the conlusions of the official version, which to me suggests that the official version does not pass the Occams Razor test.

Fascinating. Now you demonstrate lack of knowledge of Occam's razor.

you said you have done this before, so it should be no task for your legion of skepticism.

Our name is legion, for we are many. Not nearly enough, unfortunately.

So what are the eye witness accounts that contradict this? And what about the eyewitness accounts that aren't sure if it was a jet that hit the pentagon, [...]?

Syntaxman, assuming the CT is correct, why in the blue HELL would they NOT send a plane into the pentagon anyway ? What would [a missile ?] accomplish that a plane couldn't ? Wouldn't it be simpler to use a plane so eyewitnesses can CONFIRM the event ? Doesn't make sense to me.

Saying that the towers fell with a picture is in no way proof that the 40 support beams in the center of both towers were damaged enough to allow a fire to bring them down in a manner that looks like a controlled demolition but isn't.

First off, I don't think all 40 need to be damaged in order for the building to collapse. I mean, rip ONE of my legs off and I'll have trouble standing, especially if I'm stuck to the ground and can't hop.

Second, considering the amount of damage surrounding buildings were subjected to, I don't see how you can say the WTC collapse looked controlled. Would you elaborate ?

I'm still waiting on all these facts and experts that are supposed to blow me away...still waiting for your refutations of the supplied information...."still waiting" seems to be a theme on this thread.

Indeed. Have you EVER visited a site about this subject that happens to disagree with you ? Did you ever CONSIDER that you may be wrong ?

 

[CurtC]

NOW READ THE LINKS AND WATCH THE VIDEO'S...then attempt to debunk all of Alex's document sources, and all of the claims in the articles at Wiki.

I TRIED WATCHING THAT DAMN ALEX VIDEO! (there, I can use caps too). I made it through ten minutes, which were so full of lies and distortions that I decided not to waste my time with the rest. It was talking about how you can see missiles hitting the buildings just ahead of the planes. He's an idiot - he can't comprehend simple things because his mind is so clouded with the conspiracy obsession.

Was there something in there that was good? Can you pick a handful and bring them up specifically?

 

[Ed]

What about my Osma quote?

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

..

 

[Flange Desire]

..

wot e said

who, why, and how?

 

[thesyntaxera]

He wants you to find the evidence for him. He wants to convince you the evidence is there with assertions rather than presenting it to you. He doesn't present his own credentials or expertise on this matter. He simply makes assertions (making sure they're vague enough that he can backtrack if necessary, of course) and then demands that you prove him wrong. This person is not intellectually honest.

You sure seem to be making some assumptions about me, not that I am surprised. My assertions are non existent as I have previously stated. The only claim I have stuck by is that there is a ton of circumstantial loose ends that need verified, and/or investigated, that no real deductive investigation was done, and that in light of the the circumstances leading up to attack, during the attack, and after, there is more than enough cause to look at this again.

And this "conversation" is a waste of time. You're talking to a man hell bent on living in a universe where the idea that a jet plane colliding at full speed with a building and causing massive structural failure (while everyone in the world is watching!) is totally ridiculous, but building said building and placing explosives inside to deliberately destroy it for no reason at all is totally logical.

I have never said that ever. I have said what is written above. I have addressed various claims, I never suggested that were totally logical, although I am starting to feel that logic isn't something you are used to using yourself.

You must admit however, in regard to the impacts and collapses that they appear as though they are controlled demolitions, and that it takes some hand picked experts to say otherwise....even though there are plenty of other experts not appointed by the executive branch that disagree.

Reality isn't good enough for him. This is the worst kind of human being, abusing the memories of thousands of people to get 10 minutes of jollies on the internet.

According to you I guess. Thanks, I appreciate your uninformed opinion of me you soulless jerk. I am not abusing any memories...didn't you hear? 9/11 families make up the vast majority of people in favor of the 9/11 truth movement....I could be one of them....but who knows, I could be the worst kind of human being...I call for more investigation while you defend the insitution that kills thousands every year....

If he could actually supply us with a reason our leaders would conspire to destroy this building, we might have something. For now, he's just a lunatic accusing people of murder he's never even met without supplying means, motive, or opportunity because a massive building looked strange to him when it fell over. Your wit is wasted on this clown. Put him in the same bin as the Holocaust deniers and move on.

This is a blantant lie. I have done everything that you suggest I haven't. You are just too right brained to be bothered with it. Why should you have to read all the information, why should you have to research it all yourself...because, you said you have already...you said you could debunk it...so do so, there are sources, the wiki article is more than enough, not to mention all of the documents referenced in the alex jones video's..(another thing to add...apparently alex jones predicted the attacks based on the information coming out of washington months before the attack)
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/260804alexwarns.WMV

You have not debunked a single one using the excuse that you are waiting for me to pick out claims for you to analyze...which is a bunch of crap...why not just say that you are too lazy and disinterested to be bothered instead of lying about your ability to discredit. It's easier to attack the voice that brings it up than look for yourself apparently.

who, why, and how

I have already answered this, but since apparently god wasn't paying attention I will write it again.

I suggested earlier in this thread that my personal belief is that none of the popular conspiracy theories could be 100% true. I also suggested that within the available evidence as outlined in the wiki article the two alex jones video's, not to mention several other video's and web sites, there is more than enough cause for concern- all outstanding CT's aside.

Personally, I feel that with what I know about the relations between the saudi's, the bin ladens, the bush family, as well as members of the executive branch, PNAC, the carlyle group...etc it is hard to say that there isn't some conspiring going on.

If you want motive there is plenty...by plenty I mean billions...the future security of energy, peak oil, middle east security...etc..etc...essentially, the entire future of this country, but more importantly how the future of this country is shaped by those in power.

Who stood to benefit? I think you already know.

Does that mean they are guilty of planning 911...no.

In my view the members of the executive branch named as conspirators are most likely nothing more than bad politicians that used their postions to put forward an unpopular and harmfull agenda, they utilized mass media idea control to keep the populace concerned about other things in the meantime. They covered up any harmfull connections between themselves and the terror organizations/governments involved, they impeded anything that would reveal any information about these connections...the motive being preservation of power...

In short they went on damage control.

I have had the impression for a long time that bin Laden, or someone who possibly hired bin Laden had insight into these connections and sought to inflict a double blow, both to the Saudi Royals and the American Power Elite in an effort to destablize the region there and create chaos here...possibly revolution.

In summary: The disinformation, and confusion of 9/11 is a symptom of the cover up that was enacted as a reaction to the potential blow bin Laden could have struck with the attacks.

The Saudi Royals and the Bush family had everything to lose if the details of their relationship were outed to the world....assuming that the details are not all rosy...which I doubt they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

so anyway, flame on you crazy skeptics.

also read and watch my sources instead of engaging in the cro-magnon skeptical crotch grabbing that seems to be the popular way for you guys to communicate.

 

[Year Zero]

First of all, you need to make claims, then verify them. If your claim is simply something like: A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, this is easily disproven by the black boxes, plane debris found in and outside the building, the downed streetlamps in front of the crash site, and numerous eyewitness reports.

If you claim something is inadequate, or inconclusive, you need to specify what it is, and WHY you claim it is so.

 

[thesyntaxera]

see edit.

 

[thesyntaxera]

First of all, you need to make claims, then verify them. If your claim is simply something like: A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, this is easily disproven by the black boxes, plane debris found in and outside the building, the downed streetlamps in front of the crash site, and numerous eyewitness reports.

If you claim something is inadequate, or inconclusive, you need to specify what it is, and WHY you claim it is so.

This is done to death in the information provided...watch it, read it...verify it yourself, because I am not going to do the work you claim to have done already....


btw...how were you banned from hannity's forum in 24 hours...?

 

[Year Zero]

This is done to death in the information provided...watch it, read it...verify it yourself, because I am not going to do the work you claim to have done already....


btw...how were you banned from hannity's forum in 24 hours...?

And claims in that video have already been debunked. If you support that video can we assume that any claim it makes is the claim that YOU are supporting/asserting?


I got banned from Hannity's forum for something called "Contempt of Host" for pointing out a verifiable lie that Hannity had repeated several times.