9/11 conspiracy theorists best evidence
- Thread starter Bill Thompson
- Start date
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The pizza boxes were the tastiest.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
The 9/11 Commission was not able to determine where the funding for the plot came from. All you need for an inside job is a few rogue elements within the government who have accesss to a few hundred thousand dollar slush fund. They recruit a bunch of sucidal jihadists and on 9/11 plays out in the exact tragic way it did.
But no, the CT nuts come up with nonsense like super-duper nano-thermite, exploding celing tiles, space beams, pods, misslies, tampered black boxes, manipulated stock trades, flyovers, Israeli secret agents, switched DNA, faked phone calls, stand-down orders, mysterious white jets, the NWO, fake hijackers, fake bin Laden, evil Jews and drunken lap dances.
Am I forgetting anything?
But no, the CT nuts come up with nonsense like super-duper nano-thermite, exploding celing tiles, space beams, pods, misslies, tampered black boxes, manipulated stock trades, flyovers, Israeli secret agents, switched DNA, faked phone calls, stand-down orders, mysterious white jets, the NWO, fake hijackers, fake bin Laden, evil Jews and drunken lap dances.
Am I forgetting anything?
RedIbis said:
Probably very low. To my knowledge, large structures failing due to design or construction flaws severe enough for them to be considered structurally unsound has never happened three times in one day, and likely never will.
I fail to see the relevance of that question to the issue of conspiracy theory evidence, though, unless you're advancing the hypothesis that the world trade centers did not fail due to either demolition or plane impacts and fire, but rather due to pre-existing design or construction flaws? I haven't heard that theory before. Do you have any evidence for it?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
The conditions applied to WTC1, 2 & 7 exceeded their design. It wasn't a flaw or a mistake.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
It's not relevant to conspiracy theories, it's relevant to whether or not the NIST hypotheses can be taken seriously.
Not only does this highly improbable event take place three times, (at least in the case of WTC 7,) there is no physical evidence to support NIST's hypothesis, making it that much more specious.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
The conditions NIST speculates, but does not have evidence for, what was applied to the three bldgs.
It's a difficult question -- you're basically asking us to say, "assuming they're right, make up a hypothesis for them and figure out how to support it." I've never heard a Truth Movement hypothesis that even passes the giggle test, so I have to think like a fiction writer.
I guess if I was going to make up my own crackpot theory, I'd focus on the uncoordination between investigative agencies. These were real (probably still are) and well documented. We had a number of chances to nab al-Qaeda before they put their plan into effect, and they got lucky on several scores. It would be pretty easy to spin this into something that would impress the already paranoid, particularly those who have no idea how government actually works apart from what they see in movies and on CSI.
However, this only works with a LIHOP theory, and thus disagrees with 99% of the Truth Movement whether they admit it or not. If al-Qaeda didn't do it at all, as MIHOP requires, then the FBI and CIA would have a perfect excuse for not catching al-Qaeda beforehand.
If you restrict it to MIHOP and thus require some kind of physics or engineering "gap," then the trickiest technical issue I've had to think about was the duration of fire on the lower floors of WTC 7. Even that is not much of a challenge -- NIST covers that pretty well. I also fail to see what was so special about WTC 7 to begin with that it needed destroying. Who cries for WTC 6?
Another unanswered question is precisely why the last six seconds of FDR data from AA 77 are missing, though we've identified numerous possible explanations, we've seen it happen in other crashes, and we don't need those data to answer any other question so they're totally irrelevant; still, it would be potentially interesting to find out. Could even indicate a flaw in the FDR system that needs correcting.
Ultimately the question suffers because the narrative of events just doesn't lend itself to any credible alternative. I explored this some time ago -- if you're willing to admit nonexistent technologies and an infinitely complex conspiracy, perhaps you could come up with some other story, but you can't come up with one that makes a lick of practical sense. All of the Truth Movement ideas only work in isolation. Try to put it into a complete narrative, and you wind up writing yourself into a corner every time.
Hope that gives you what you're looking for. Tricky question.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
Wasn't their a link/money-transfer found between the ISI, and Mohammed Atta. I believe the former transfered some $ to the latter.
Why didn't they invade Pakistan then? Anyone have info on this?
One version of one story says Saeed Sheikh transferred money to Atta at the request of the chief of the ISI. But a) the transfer has never been established as fact, and b) the request from the chief of the ISI has never been requested as fact, and c) even if it were true it would only be speculation to say this was an ISI, as opposed to a Mehmood Ahmed policy, and d) there's no reason to believe the money came from the ISI anyway.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
I believe you are incorrect in your analysis due to over-simplification.(if such a word exists.) A MIHOP hypothesis could involve certain 'elite' members of the goverment using Al-Queda as their agents of destruction, and ignoring/suppressing legitimate intel from 'non-elite' members who are just doing their job. We can't paint everyone with the same brush. IE. assume to know who believes what.
In fact, has it not been clearly demonstrated that ample intel was provided and ignored/not acted upon due to compartmentalization within the intelligence agencies?
No, it's not that simple. Like I said, these ideas only work in isolation. Your fragment above requires that al-Qaeda, which was built over a period of decades, is and has always been under the control of the United States Government. All of the associated problems with LIHOP still apply, except here they have to apply over a period ten times as long. It's therefore a worse theory than LIHOP by definition, and vastly less credible.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
What I'm saying is that nothing is simple!
I don't believe it is strictly either LIHOP or MIHOP. A conspiracy of such a grand nature would require many facets of both theories, and all the associated problems.
If you believe that the Gov't could be involved in any capacity with the attacks on 9/11, then its not that far of a stretch to say that the CIA mostly controls Al-Queda.
I don't believe it is strictly either LIHOP or MIHOP. A conspiracy of such a grand nature would require many facets of both theories, and all the associated problems.
If you believe that the Gov't could be involved in any capacity with the attacks on 9/11, then its not that far of a stretch to say that the CIA mostly controls Al-Queda.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
With regards to (D):There's no reason to believe the money came from the ISI.
Does this mean that money was received?
Also, can anyone answer a question with regards to the Put Call options trading at higher than usual volume? Can someone knowledged on this subject present themselves for a query?
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
And so it begins.
Good luck with that. Also take a look at Smacco's Razor while you're at it.
To help you with your own terminology, any fusion of LIHOP and MIHOP is MIHOP by definition, an unnecessarily complicated one. Think about it.
I don't doubt it. One could also say that if you believe the Gov't could be involved ...etc, then it's not that far of a stretch to say that Bigfoot pilots a UFO powered by Original Coke.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
No. It means that there's a reported explanation for how Saeed Sheikh may have obtained the money himself (via an associate, who got it from a kidnapping), which may or may not be accurate. But there's no explanation or evidence as to how the money might have arrived from the ISI. So while people might want to speculate that's what happened, they've yet to present any reason to believe it.
The highly improbable event to which you were referring, for which I linked the Hyatt walkway collapse as an example, is collapse attributable to structural unsoundness due to errors in design or construction.
This highly improbable event did not take place three times on 9/11. It did not take place even once.
If you believe the buildings were structurally unsound to begin with, then you don't need either "the official story" or any "conspiracy theory" to explain why they collapsed. Instead, you need an explanation for why they stayed standing for so long. And until you have such an explanation, no rational statement can be made about their probability of collapsing on any given day.
Respectfully,
Myriad