Was 9/11 A Hoax?

[bigred]

Mein gott, switch to decaf and lighten up.

Funny that's what I was going to say to you.

 

[RandFan]

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.

JREF isn't for everyone. We have a nasty habit of not suffering foolish ideas gladly. If you are looking for a caring environment where all ideas are nurtured and respected then you are definitely in the wrong place. You might want to try www.mylittlepony.com. They don't have a forum but they do have lots of pastel colors.

 

[bob_kark]

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.

Why do you think this makes any difference?

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 mean such as a conspiracy theorist? You attempted to present a conspiracy theory as fact. You still believe that there is a possibility that it is true even though you have evidence to the contrary. Why should I believe that you are not?

 

[SirPhilip]

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.

Because your posts on other topics I've read have been balanced, I'll trust your judgement and defer further raising the issue until special information comes to light supporting the possibility. As to everyone else, including the 10 year olds here who type responses while staring up at a poster of an early draft of the baloney detection kit without the ad hominem above their monitor, sorry for the mess. I'll check to see if a topic has been brought up before doing that next time.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

If we're talking about a 9/11 hoax in terms of the destruction of the buildings was a set up, then why not just use the same method previously used in an attempt to destroy them, namely a large amount of explosives in the car park? That would be a better way to bring down a building, if that was the intention. The previous attempt didn't work as it was a van full of explosives, where what you need is properly placed demolition charges (ie explosives placed to destroy structural elements).

Why create an elaborate scheme to hijack planes to crash them into an already wired building? What if the hijackings failed? Then you've got the WTC wired for sound but no cover story to set it off. If we're talking about a high level goverment cover up then you've got military people involved, and high level military is involved in planning, and anyone that makes half decent plans knows that virtually no plan survives contact with the enemy.

 

[SirPhilip]

You mean such as a conspiracy theorist? You attempted to present a conspiracy theory as fact.

This is getting tiring, Bob. Why (where) would (did) I do such a thing?

You still believe that there is a possibility that it is true even though you have evidence to the contrary. Why should I believe that you are not?

Because Vice President Cheney is a mean head and President Bush is an unethical stupid head and they don't even bother to spice up their own conspiracy theory (nonexistant war against us) and refuse to get real jobs.

 

[bob_kark]

This is getting tiring, Bob. Why (where) would (did) I do such a thing?

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

As to why, I have no idea.

Because Vice President Cheney is a mean head and President Bush is an unethical stupid head and they don't even bother to spice up their own conspiracy theory (nonexistant war against us) and refuse to get real jobs.

Evidence?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Your logical disconnect is taking "Bush is corrupt" and pretending it's evidence of anything you want it to be.

I think there are secret naval submarine bases underneath the Arctic ocean where the US military conducts experiments on UFO propulsion systems.

What, you don’t believe me? Well, a year ago you might have found it hard to believe our President was illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens.

See how it works? It becomes evidence of whatever you want. All you're really saying is, "You should give my absurd thing more credibility because this other absurd thing turned out to be true" and that isn't logical.

 

[SirPhilip]

Your logical disconnect is taking "Bush is corrupt" and pretending it's evidence of anything you want it to be.

If indeed he is revealed to be a clinical sociopath/disordered NPD by one action behind the public's back, then the imagination truly can, and should, soar.

See how it works? It becomes evidence of whatever you want. All you're really saying is, "You should give my absurd thing more credibility because this other absurd thing turned out to be true" and that isn't logical.

He is likely going to be investigated, it is just a question of whether he is corrupt or not. If not, then flights of assumption like these are unfounded. If he is, this opens up a pandoras box and everyone here should recognize why that is. This is a diversion from my normally guarded statements, because I was personally involved with a primary psychopath, and it was the most shocking and unbelievable, world-tilting thing you could ever imagine. As a conservative Republican, I also personally supported this administration, feeling democracy in the middle east was a noble cause, but I'm also partially responsible for the deaths of 30,000+ people also - I genuinely hope he is not corrupt, but my better judgement is overriding evidence at this point.

 

[Beerina]

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Why would a government seeking to pull off such a thing use the IDs of real, existing, living people? They're the government, they can create entirely fictional people, complete with legitimate birth certificates and social security numbers. To say nothing of faking up passports of fake people from other countries.

Or just kidnap the real ones and make sure they never reappear again.

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000

Was this a training exercise on rescuing people after an accident, or in preparation for an attack?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite.

First the woo woos are all up in arms that Cheney issued the order to shoot the planes down, now his order was to not shoot them down?!?!?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires.

Because ignorant woos selling books deliberately mislead you with facts. The steel didn't have to "melt", which is the fancy scientific turn for "turn to a liquid". It merely had to get hotter, and the hotter it got, the weaker and softer it became. Also, was this certification with the coating that was removed in the initial collisions? In any case, what were the values for the steel used in those actual buildings, not steel in general? Also, burning wood at the edge of a fire is much cooler than the white hot coals at the center. A larger conflagration of fuel will produce a hotter fire at the core.

 

[aerocontrols]

Why would a government seeking to pull off such a thing use the IDs of real, existing, living people? They're the government, they can create entirely fictional people, complete with legitimate birth certificates and social security numbers. To say nothing of faking up passports of fake people from other countries.

Not to mention the incredible lack of foresight required in the alleged 'choice' of who was behind it.

Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon.

We didn't want to invade any of those countries!

Jeebus Wolfowitz Cheney, put a Cuban or two in the group or something.

 

[SirPhilip]

Funny that's what I was going to say to you.

I'll admit I have 400mg of caffeine anhydrous USP flowing through my veins, and could crap more rhetoric than Jack Sarfatti on PCP right now, but was it that obvious? I bet you are one of those pesky Indigo brats, aren't you.

 

[epepke]

Because your posts on other topics I've read have been balanced, I'll trust your judgement and defer further raising the issue until special information comes to light supporting the possibility.

That probably has more to do with the fact that they don't gore your personal ox than any other reason.

 

[SirPhilip]

That probably has more to do with the fact that they don't gore your personal ox than any other reason.

I'd say anyone who doesn't look on this administration with some distrust and suspicion right now is being willfully ignorant. What is it now, an estimated 60% of Americans don't? If sins did exist, I would hope one would have been a lack of suspicion for political leaders throughout history. If you become president, you should be given the benefit of the doubt to a point.

 

[Mycroft]

If indeed he is revealed to be a clinical sociopath/disordered NPD by one action behind the public's back, then the imagination truly can, and should, soar.

That's what I'm saying. As long as you depend on imagination and not evidence, you will always be a conspiracy kook.

I'd say anyone who doesn't look on this administration with some distrust and suspicion right now is being willfully ignorant.

There is a huge difference between looking on an administration with distrust and suspicion and claiming the administration is guilty of engineering a terrorist attack against the population.

 

[epepke]

I'd say anyone who doesn't look on this administration with some distrust and suspicion right now is being willfully ignorant.

I look at this administration, not only with distrust and ignorance, but with outright hatred.

But I don't see that this has anything to do with your personal problems with RandFan, who is not a member of this administration.

I've both agreed and disagreed with things that RandFan has said, but I don't think there's a lot of difference in his approach. I'm suggesting that you have a problem with him because, right now, he's goring your personal ox.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You know how there are some cars that are equipped with those vinyl tops that are intended to make them look like convertibles? And it's always a 4-door sedan? For the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone believes phony is classy, or even mildly attractive. But then I find I'm sorta thankful the owners of these cars are so willing to loudly broadcast their near total lack of taste; it helps me to steer clear of them (chortle).

So it is with outlandish conspiracy claims.

 

[SirPhilip]

I look at this administration, not only with distrust and ignorance, but with outright hatred. But I don't see that this has anything to do with your personal problems with RandFan, who is not a member of this administration. I've both agreed and disagreed with things that RandFan has said, but I don't think there's a lot of difference in his approach. I'm suggesting that you have a problem with him because, right now, he's goring your personal ox.

Personal ox? What you call my "personal ox" is in reality a disappointment, and a tremendous sense of willful ignorance for re-electing him and not getting a clue earlier. Yet you have hatred for it and it isn't a "personal ox". Look, debating whether a well connected group of billionares can knock an enormous building (s) down and make it look like an attack is, in essense, a wild conspiracy theory. It isn't when you have a psychopath driving. Evidence then becomes a goal, and a secondary consideration to motive. Probably one of the most glaring, stupid oversights of mine has been to overlook his unapparent sense of guilt. I'm not in disagreement with Randfan , he just doesn't have a logical disconnect based on a fundamental reason, I do. Evidence is moot when you are dealing with the morally insane - they aren't fictional people, they gravitate primarily to positions of control and are impossible to spot from a normal person, only by their actions. In this case, innocent until proven guilty. But if there's really a ball to push down the mountain, it's a big ball and a steep, tall mountain, and be prepared for the twilight zone. A twilight zone a lot of bewildered significant others have inhabited on a personal level, or as many woos like to say "As above, so below".

And yeah, I hope someone reading this will let their brain fall out and take this on faith. We're dealing with tens of billions of dollars spent (that could have went to a real humanitarian effort, or just better public schools) to murder 30,000+ men, women, children, American and allied soldiers, and at the center of it all is someone without apparent capacity for personal responsibility and saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite behind the public's back. What motive is there for this? There is none, failure to plan ahead is a characteristic of it, as any criminal psychologist will tell you.

 

[epepke]

Personal ox? What you call my "personal ox" is in reality a dissapointment, and a tremendous sense of willful ignorance for re-electing him and not getting a clue earlier. Yet you have hatred for it and it isn't a "personal ox".

Hatred? No; I'm just amused. You don't rate high enough for my hatred. Sorry.

But, I have to remind you again that you did not re-elect Randfan. You may have re-elected someone else, but that's your problem. If you had the bad taste to re-elect Bush, then go find a punching bag or a pinball machine or something, because your bad judgement is really not my problem, except inasmuch as your actions helped make this planet more unpleasant for me.

 

[LostAngeles]

...

WHOA, nelly. I was quoting the article and offering answers! Your post makes it look like I'm saying that stuff. Probably too late to fix, but I just want to make it clear those aren't my words. You quoted my post, removed my answers and the internal quote boxes. Not cool, dude.

My post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1420909#post1420909