• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was 9/11 A Hoax?

Let's talk logistics, SirPhilip. How many people do you think would be needed to pull off everything that happened on 9/11 if the conspiracists are right? In your answer, please indicate whether or not you are assuming hidden radio-controlled airplane controls in the passenger jets or if some other method was used to fly the planes into the towers.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are compelling arguments against the idea anyone knew beforehand or were involved in it, I just don't think it is cut and dry like that and easy to rule out. Bush's spying program already fits into what is considered a "conspiracy theory". Let's just agree to disagree, this is politically charged, but apologies for starting another thread on this topic, though. I also apologise for carrying on a debate about this. You don't debate on assumptions, but the idea that the administration is corrupt is simply not far fetched anymore.
 
Elind said:
It's not masked irritation, it's real irritation at this type of garbage you call logic.

Wow, you should inform congress and the American public about all these impossible situations.

You are the conspiracy theorist, and a pretty poor one at that. The sarcasm you read in this thread does a better job at it than you do.:mad:
Click to expand...
You have to admit, my theory about the Bush administration illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens was a lot better. Conspiracy theorists must be falling over themselves s-itting books out to keep up with the real dilemma too. If you came on here three months ago and started throwing out the idea there was a secret domestic spying program going on, it wouldn't hold up either. It's still a far cry from actual involvement or foreknowledge, but this is not a far out idea now, but putting it in the same catagory as tall tales is blockheaded and dishonest.
 
SirPhilip said:
You have to admit, my theory about the Bush administration illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens was a lot better. Conspiracy theorists must be falling over themselves s-itting books out to keep up with the real dilemma too. If you came on here three months ago and started throwing out the idea there was a secret domestic spying program going on, it wouldn't hold up either. It's still a far cry from actual involvement or foreknowledge, but this is not a far out idea now, but putting it in the same catagory as tall tales is blockheaded and dishonest.
Click to expand...

:woowoo:woo:yahoo
 
Elind said:
The only reason I can think you would do that is:tr:
Click to expand...
I should have looked before I lept up on such a politically charged issue. Some people here cling too much to reductionism, though. In the case of a "conspiracy" type assumption, it's credibility is defined by it's probability. A lot of people don't want to accept that this degree of political corruption and wrongdoing in this administration is indeed possible, but each side of the political divide have stepped up to voice strong concerns. That domestic spying program was the last straw, and I'm now one of them.
 
SirPhilip said:
You have to admit, my theory about the Bush administration illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens was a lot better. Conspiracy theorists must be falling over themselves s-itting books out to keep up with the real dilemma too. If you came on here three months ago and started throwing out the idea there was a secret domestic spying program going on, it wouldn't hold up either. It's still a far cry from actual involvement or foreknowledge, but this is not a far out idea now, but putting it in the same catagory as tall tales is blockheaded and dishonest.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem, you start off by talking about how the WTC was demoed and now want to fall back on saying that the Bush administration is corrupt? Your credibility has been destroyed. Why should anyone listen?
 
Last edited:
SirPhilip said:
That domestic spying program was the last straw, and I'm now one of them.
Click to expand...

You really do need to pick up a history book. Whether or not you agree on the procedural issues, secretly spying on enemy communications is a well-established incident to war.
 
davefoc said:
I think, in fairness, Johnny Pixels, it is important to mention the other obvious possibility here. The same people who planted the charges in the Twin towers also planted them in the Amsterdam apartment building.

I think what probably happened was that the conspirators blew up the Amsterdam apartment building just after the jetliner crashed into it as both a practice exercise and a diversion to cover what was their real target, the twin towers in NY, which they successfully destroyed eight years later..
Click to expand...

Dang! I always miss the obvious ones. Need to watch more Scooby Doo I think



:velma:
 
SirPhilip said:
Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...
Click to expand...

So how many ways are there that a building can fall down? There's collapsing vertically down like the WTC, or there's falling over like you see chimney stacks do, or there's a combination of some collapse and some falling. To me they could all look like controlled demolitions

If the plane hits the top of the building, then it's more likely that the collapse of the the small top section leads to the vertical collapse. If it hit at the bottom, then it's more likely to topple.

The design of the WTC meant that it would be less likely to topple as the support structure ran around the outside of the building, but also had a a central core support structure. A plane crashing into the side of the building would remove a section of the outer wall, but not enough to cause the building to topple. The resulting fire on the inside however, would weaken the central support structure. When this became malleable enough it would bend and collape inwards, as the outer support would still be in place, containing the collapse to a certain extent, preventing the building from suffereing a toppling collapse, but causing the vertical collapse failure seen in the WTC.

If history teaches us anything, it's that research works better than making things up.
 
bob_kark said:
Therein lies the problem, you start off by talking about how the WTC was demoed and now want to fall back on saying that the Bush administration is corrupt? Your credibility has been destroyed. Why should anyone listen?
Click to expand...
(Cool! A skeptical partisan hack..)

It seems unlikely at this point that the current administration is not corrupt in some way. As to the attack, I'm not convinced it happened that way, but I'm suspicious of it now. Reductionism just shifts a scale of probability one way or another, but it doesn't effect the key issue. I think more investigation must be done. The emotional attachment in your reply is obvious, and isn't honest - you owe me an apology for that stupid remark, I think.

You are assigning concrete status to a real issue. I'm making a point that this degree of distrust is appropriate. I just did a google search and it appears another major paper is exploring the implications of the article:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13760721.htm

If this becomes a hot political button, everyone has zero credibility too by raising it?
 
If history teaches us anything, it's that research works better than making things up.
Click to expand...
Indeed, which is why I hope issues like this can be resolved without a doubt. Right now, they aren't, and it is dishonest to say they are. My entire series of replies in a nutshell.
 
SirPhilip said:
Indeed, which is why I hope issues like this can be resolved without a doubt. Right now, they aren't, and it is dishonest to say they are. My entire series of replies in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
In the course of such events there is never complete resolution. It is the nature of complex events to create incongruous data. The point isn't to dismiss the data out of hand but to do ones best to reconcile it and have a willingness to consider the data in the overall scheme of things. If the data is significant then perhaps further inquiry is warranted. In this case it would seem that further inquiry would simply be a colossal waste of time, IMO.
 
Cylinder said:
You really do need to pick up a history book. Whether or not you agree on the procedural issues, secretly spying on enemy communications is a well-established incident to war.
Click to expand...
Which is why so many senators, judges, and members of both parties regard it as a very serious breach of public trust.

I can just imagine walking into congress and shouting: "Hey! Whether or not you agree on procedural issues, secretly spying on enemy communications is a well-established incident of war!". By the way, change "war" to "conquest" in this case. Something, you being so familiar with history, will recognize as a reoccuring theme among sons of kings.
 
RandFan said:
In the course of such events there is never complete resolution. It is the nature of complex events to create incongruous data. The point isn't to dismiss the data out of hand but to do ones best to reconcile it and have a willingness to consider the data in the overall scheme of things. If the data is significant then perhaps further inquiry is warranted. In this case it would seem that further inquiry would simply be a colossal waste of time, IMO.
Click to expand...
I haven't researched the subject enough to disagree here. The amount of investigative articles written on it is enormous, and debating without further evidence would be silly. It's entirely possible there was no involvement. But stating as a fact there could not be or treating the possibility as bunk just reveals emotional attachment and denial, not honesty.
 
SirPhilip said:
(Cool! A skeptical partisan hack..)

It seems unlikely at this point that the current administration is not corrupt in some way. As to the attack, I'm not convinced it happened that way, but I'm suspicious of it now. Reductionism just shifts a scale of probability one way or another, but it doesn't effect the key issue. I think more investigation must be done. The emotional attachment in your reply is obvious, and isn't honest - you owe me an apology for that stupid remark, I think.

You are assigning concrete status to a real issue. I'm making a point that this degree of distrust is appropriate. I just did a google search and it appears another major paper is exploring the implications of the article:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13760721.htm

If this becomes a hot political button, everyone has zero credibility too by raising it?
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree that this administration may very well be corrupt, the point I'm trying to make is that by making outrageous claims, you destroy your credibility. In addition, you destroy the credibility of other people claiming that there is corruption within the White House by association. Anyone who claims that the administration regularly ejects reporters who ask tough questions, anyone who claims that the administration developed a clear plan to torture prisoners, anyone who claims that Bush went AWOL, anyone who claims that war in Iraq was waged to feed the pockets of Bush's cronies and supporters, is simply dismissed by the American public as being yet another nut case conspiracy theorist. Therefore, nothing is done.

In fact, few would have believed that Bush had ordered domestic spying unless it had come out in the press. So, because of you and other conspiracy theorists, rational people are not taken seriously when they make claims of corruption within the White House. Really, if anything, you owe me an apology.
 
SirPhilip said:
I haven't researched the subject enough to disagree here. The amount of investigative articles written on it is enormous, and debating without further evidence would be silly. It's entirely possible there was no involvement. But stating as a fact there could not be or treating the possibility as bunk just reveals emotional attachment and denial, not honesty.
Click to expand...
But I have read conspiracy theories and I have read the counter arguments and looked at the evidence. There simply is too much evidence against a 9/11 hoax.

Anything is possible, hell the world might actually be flat and maybe we didn't go to the moon. When good evidence surfaces for such beliefs I will look into them further but as it stands now there is nothing substantive that I have seen and I doubt that there will ever be for flat earth, moon landing hoax and a 9/11 hoax.

As James Randi is want to say, "you don't have to be so open minded that your brains fall out." Honesty doesn't preclude a judgment based on the available evidence. And the preponderance of the available evidence is against a 9/11 hoax.
 
In fact, few would have believed that Bush had ordered domestic spying unless it had come out in the press. So, because of you and other conspiracy theorists, rational people are not taken seriously when they make claims of corruption within the White House. Really, if anything, you owe me an apology.
Click to expand...
Pah. I only recently started doubting the credibility of the administration I voted in. This is, in fact, the first time I ever raised the real possibility, publically, ever, and considered these assumptions as viable. Seriously though, a lot of you people really need to practice basic manners. It's childish as hell the way some of you immediately resort to stupid labels and ad hominems, and dissapointing as a lot of the discussion on the JREF Forums is anything but.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom