Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!

Is it possible that David Copperfield made the WTC towers disappear?

 

[patchbunny]

but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.

The level of ignorance in this sentence is staggering.

Perhaps you can provide a list of all structural columns that failed on the WTC as a result of wind loads over the last 30 years? There must have been quite a few.

 

[Year Zero]

Is it possible that David Copperfield made the WTC towers disappear?

Holy CRAP!!! We haven't heard anything from Copperfield for years....now we know why.

 

[CurtC]

Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.

Just to follow up on this point, the fuel did not all blow up at once because it is fuel, not an explosive. Do you know the difference? I'll give you a hint - it's something to do with oxygen.

 

[Starthinker]

Holy CRAP!!! We haven't heard anything from Copperfield for years....now we know why.

I know I coveted his wife for many years.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Any ideas on how to get out of one of these debates gracefully?

I'm on page 16 of posts at the forum I mentioned where I'm vastly outnumbered and despite my own logical, independent thought (IMHO ) it's been devolving into an insult match. Now one of the CTs has cut and pasted the whole of this page into the thread:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

and I don't know if I've got the patience to address each point.

I've already been accused of having my head in the sand about the whole theory. I replied by saying they had their heads in clouds of bong smoke, and a moderator went ballistic.

This debate is addictive, but I just don't know if I'm that addicted.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I know I coveted his wife for many years.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I just had a flash of insight. Of sorts.

I think it likely that what thesockpuppeteera means when it says "inductive" and "deductive" is something like "post hoc" and "open minded". It's complaining that the investigation (in its mind anyway) assumed the truth of the conventional story and sought to explain it, rather than approaching the whole affair as a mystery and searching for evidence of conspiracies.

It would almost be a valid point, if there had been any evidence that something weird had occurred in the first place.

For the record, no, I have never encountered anybody else using the terms this way. I'm not sure if it's a WTC-kook thing or a this-particular-kook thing but either way it's not normal use of the language in any branch of academia I'm familiar with.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Just re-read this post:

Have a look at this page, which includes pictures of the aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon.

Thanks. That's a handy link. The webfairy link to 'smokingguns' I just posted alleges that no plane hit the Pentagon, yet the CTs had earlier posted links to whatreallyhappened.com. They don't know what to believe, except anything but the 'official version'. They're so special, just not in the way they think they are.

 

[patchbunny]

Just re-read this post:

Thanks. That's a handy link. The webfairy link to 'smokingguns' I just posted alleges that no plane hit the Pentagon, yet the CTs had earlier posted links to whatreallyhappened.com. They don't know what to believe, except anything but the 'official version'. They're so special, just not in the way they think they are.

I've always found the plane-shaped impact scar on the pantagon to be rather convincing of an aircraft hit. The fuselage penetrated, but the wings had trouble and generally just blew out the infill walls. On the columns you can follow the line of the wings.

 

[patchbunny]

Any ideas on how to get out of one of these debates gracefully?

I think The Central Scrutinizer posted a lovely beach photo that may serve as a distraction.

I'm on page 16 of posts at the forum I mentioned where I'm vastly outnumbered and despite my own logical, independent thought (IMHO ) it's been devolving into an insult match. Now one of the CTs has cut and pasted the whole of this page into the thread:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

and I don't know if I've got the patience to address each point.

I'm confused. Was the 9/11 attacks so we could cover-up pentagon accounting errors, or so we could install a pipeline in Afghanistan?

Some of the points are just stupid. "Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse." This supports a conspiracy why?

Found a link the other day showing police shooting a man armed with a knife that charged them. He was shot repeatedly with pistol and shotgun fire. Comments on the film protested the police's "trigger happy" attitude because they didn't try shooting the knife out of his hand or just shoot him once. Some folks just have no connection with reality.

These people grab any little detail and use it to support their position, regardless of how weak it is becasue in their mind, "The government never makes mistakes, and any mistake is sign of a conspiracy." I worked for the DoD for over three years, and I know they aren't perfect. Shall I tell you of the time an Air Force Colonel was convinced that the only reason the trains blew their whistles at the road crossing by the base was to annoy the base residents? And we had a railroad representative come out and explain the relevant laws and regulations regarding railroad crossings and roads? And when all was said and done, he still didn't buy it?

There comes a time when you just smile and walk away, and a time when you laugh so hard you blow your drink out your nose all over their "The Truth is Out There" T-shirt. That time has come, IMHO. You will never convince them otherwise, and only serves a purpose if you like wrestling with pigs in the mud. Which makes me wonder why I've been posting the way I have been lately, as I hate pigs and mud.

At any rate, my point has been made. You can refute all you want. It isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[Orphia Nay]

That's a good point, patchbunny, thanks for your comment.

Pity they'll only believe a point if it's got a website attached, and then even rarely. That's why I'm getting nowhere at the moment, because I've been just using reasoning to debate them. They were the ones to start the thread and make the claim that bombs were used at the WTC. I'm not about to accept the shifting of the burden of proof onto me, but there may come a time when some of the links posted here might come in handy.

Speaking of which, does anyone remember where to find the post/link (controlleddemolition.com or something similar) about it taking weeks to set up a controlled demolition of a multi-storey building? I've been searching but can't find anything. I can find this:

In the months prior to blow down day up to 40 Controlled Demolition Group staff soft stripped and pre-weakened the buildings, removing hazardous asbestos and asbestos contaminated artex using revolutionary safety techniques developed by the company.

at this page
but I thought the one I was looking for had more detail about installing the explosives. I hope the link wasn't at bautforum because that's making my old version of explorer crash.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I think The Central Scrutinizer posted a lovely beach photo that may serve as a distraction.


I'm confused. Was the 9/11 attacks so we could cover-up pentagon accounting errors, or so we could install a pipeline in Afghanistan?

Some of the points are just stupid. "Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to twin towers' collapse." This supports a conspiracy why?

Found a link the other day showing police shooting a man armed with a knife that charged them. He was shot repeatedly with pistol and shotgun fire. Comments on the film protested the police's "trigger happy" attitude because they didn't try shooting the knife out of his hand or just shoot him once. Some folks just have no connection with reality.

These people grab any little detail and use it to support their position, regardless of how weak it is becasue in their mind, "The government never makes mistakes, and any mistake is sign of a conspiracy." I worked for the DoD for over three years, and I know they aren't perfect. Shall I tell you of the time an Air Force Colonel was convinced that the only reason the trains blew their whistles at the road crossing by the base was to annoy the base residents? And we had a railroad representative come out and explain the relevant laws and regulations regarding railroad crossings and roads? And when all was said and done, he still didn't buy it?

There comes a time when you just smile and walk away, and a time when you laugh so hard you blow your drink out your nose all over their "The Truth is Out There" T-shirt. That time has come, IMHO. You will never convince them otherwise, and only serves a purpose if you like wrestling with pigs in the mud. Which makes me wonder why I've been posting the way I have been lately, as I hate pigs and mud.

At any rate, my point has been made. You can refute all you want. It isn't going to get you anywhere.

Your points are great, and make much sense to me. I fear you are right about it not getting me anywhere, except it feeding my apparent addiction. Although my brain does get a nice workout, as well.

 

[patchbunny]

Speaking of which, does anyone remember where to find the post/link (controlleddemolition.com or something similar) about it taking weeks to set up a controlled demolition of a multi-storey building? I've been searching but can't find anything. I can find this:


at this page
but I thought the one I was looking for had more detail about installing the explosives. I hope the link wasn't at bautforum because that's making my old version of explorer crash.

CDI is at http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?. I've seen Discovery or Nova specials with them before. You might try asking direct what help they can provide with some simple questions as to what goes into a demolition prep.

As a follow-up, I do know that it's not a matter of piling explosives next to a column or beam. You clear away the surrounding material first (i.e., all the material that hides that ugly steel frame), and (from what I"ve seen for steel) lay out carefully sized linear shaped charges to cut the steel. TNT "kicker" blocks are used to push the now cut bean out of the line of force so the building can't resettle on the column. You can tell if steel's been cut by a shaped charge by the copper traces left behind and the deformation patterns in the steel.

I don't doubt that shaped charges are also used for concrete, but I've not seen video of a concrete structure being prepped.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks again. I think the info at the 55 Wood Street Building might be useful.

After two (2) months of preparation, CDI’s 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structure.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I just had a flash of insight. Of sorts.

I think it likely that what thesockpuppeteera means when it says "inductive" and "deductive" is something like "post hoc" and "open minded". It's complaining that the investigation (in its mind anyway) assumed the truth of the conventional story and sought to explain it, rather than approaching the whole affair as a mystery and searching for evidence of conspiracies.

It would almost be a valid point, if there had been any evidence that something weird had occurred in the first place.

For the record, no, I have never encountered anybody else using the terms this way. I'm not sure if it's a WTC-kook thing or a this-particular-kook thing but either way it's not normal use of the language in any branch of academia I'm familiar with.

wow, you better put that flash of insight under a lamp cover, it might get blown out by the stiff breeze created by the skeptical wind machines on here.

You are correct, and should I be at all surprised it took until page 8 for you genius' to finally grasp such a simple concept?

Its not normal use of the word? Is that what was hanging you up? Come now, it's just a word, you know the meaning...I think I even posted it...couldn't you in the land of infinte logic have extrapolated this sooner?

My point, to state it for the board again, is that because a deductive investigation wasn't done..ie they didn't disprove all other possibilities, CT is allowed to thrive. Every contention made in support of the official theory after the fact will only further the CT claims because there is no way to prove something wrong when there is nothing to prove it wrong with..

ok, is the group still together? nobody got lost?

and on we go:

you would rather complain about Ct'ers than actually analyze the problems within the case itself. it must give your ego a nice boost to stomp all over the false assumptions of others, that said, it's no wonder why you all have reacted the way you did to some simple questions...

any amount of evidence will always be subverted when a government is secretive in anyway, and you can't deny that this government was secretive in almost every way.

thats why I asked, why not 1 photo of a plane hitting the pentagon, why not release the sealed photo's...etc...

they could end the controversy very easily, and they don't....this isn't suspect to you all I imagine, because your busy rationalizing why a government that is "by the people, for the people" needs to keep secrets from them.

the reason it is important in this case is simple as well...

you know were in a war right?

you know everything we have done regarding this war has been affected by this event?

I don't suppose the civillian casualty figures came up while you were frantically trying to locate the exact budget for the NIST investigation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is at odds with us, because of the people in question, and your too busy trying to prove there isn't a NWO to notice that there is a power elite messing things up for everyone.

All conspiracy talk aside, if there had been a legitimate investigation we might have found out a lot faster that they are completely f-ed and are completely f-ing everything up, and we as voters and citizens would have been more equipt to deal with it...instead we get to watch it unravel over 8 years...and then deal with the consequences.

meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.

have fun.

 

[Flange Desire]

Every contention made in support of the official theory after the fact will only further the CT claims because there is no way to prove something wrong when there is nothing to prove it wrong with..

Seems you have used the word 'theory' in an incorrect context
(but then again it is pretty hard to tell as the whole post if fairly incoherant).

you know were in a war right?

No.

meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.

Your xenocentricity is showing, and it seems your fulcrum may have slipped.

 

[Year Zero]

Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts. Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.

 

[Garrette]

Flange, I have no choice but to conclude that you are not a good american.

How despicable.

 

[Year Zero]

I for one am sick of people pretending that you have to believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories to oppose the administration or its war in Iraq. This is complete nonsense. If anything this actually distracts from the very real problems of US foreign policy. After all, if our own government conspires to kill thousands of its citizens, we don't have to reevaluate our policies of involvement in the Middle East. Then again, we couldn't really fight such a powerful government either, so we might as well sit on our collective ass, watch TV, and talk about the conspiracy on the Internet. Hopefully the government agents won't take us out for doing so.

I was against a war on Iraq long before anyone else started complaining, simply because the very premise is idiotic, they were clearly not connected with Al Qaeda, and it was clear that it would be a strategic headache. When I was in the army, around the time of 9-11, we were already beginning the transformation into a lighter, more rapidly deployable force designed to handle small, local conflicts(world police duties!). This was how many defense experts believed the wars of the future would look. Obviously, that is a bit short-sighted, but this is the direction the army was moving in. So essentially, moving in and conquering a country with conventional force was something the army was moving away from.

To date I don't know if they have had to severely alter those plans.