It's a conspiracy to keep them from you.
Any Conspiracy-Busters here?
- Thread starter Year Zero
- Start date
thesyntaxera
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 882
well, then..perhaps you can tell how you posting links is "evidence" of refutation, and me posting links that are just as speculative as the ones you post are somehow not "evidence" but just speculation.
Yeah, he sure is. He is asking me to make up a theory so he can go to town debunking it... I am to add air to an already over-swollen balloon? Hardly. He can't answer my simple questions either...so why should I engage in game playing with him?
I would thank you for being the first person in this thread that actually heard what I was saying, except that I think you are most likely trolling through here in the same manner as the rest.
There isn't enough public information, and official scrutiny of the event, and subsequent investigations to totally prove the official story to the masses.
There isn't enough evidence that was ignored to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was conspiracy....there really just isn't enough evidence gathered at all to prove sucessfully either side, and there never will be because it is all gone.
So skeptics step in and rationalize in favor of what they term to be the most logical course of events....
....and CT's jump in rationalizing whatever they wish based on the exact same evidence that was available to the skeptics.
You've made it obvious that you are going to cherry pick every claim you wish to debunk because that is easier than looking at all the claims in a wider context..something you would try to claim is me trying to get you to take the CT claims seriously no doubt... in any case you have disregarded any point of view other than your own.
If you were to draw your head out of your backside for just a second you might see at least this:
Something went catastrophically wrong in our government from the top down that allowed this to happen...perhaps not intentionally...the fallout from the event being deflected to preserve the integrity of the executive branch of government, afterward said executive branch capitalizes in everyway possible on the event to forward an agenda that by their own admission needed an attack like this to move forward.
If there was any cover up it was done to protect the government from the people...
Instead of the government protecting the people.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,928
If you cannot tell the logical difference between specualtion as to why a passport survives a crash (one where other pieces of more fragile paper survived) and another that speculates how thousands of co-conspirators are kept completely and utterly silent by use of threats (when history has shown that this does not work) then there really is no hope for you.
CurtC
Illuminator
If you would prefer that we not cherry-pick the claims we want to debunk, why don't you narrow down the scope of your postings, and not put up everything that any lunatic ever dreamed up. Just give the top handful of problems with the official story for this discussion to address. Earlier, I simply picked one site you had posted, and addressed that. It was pretty much insane ranting. If there is a better argument, why don't you post just that?
Or are you saying that we shouldn't look at the credibility of each claim on its own, but should instead look at the overall picture of a conspiracy that all those claims are pointing to? Looking at the sum total of a bunch of bad data can't point in the right direction, we have to evaluate the credibility of each on its own merits.
It would have been great if our government was on top of that kind of intelligence before 9/11. I'm not surprised that without any kind of precedent, they weren't. I'm also not that surprised about the administration's reluctance to have the investigation, since they would see it as after-the-fact finger pointing, which would not be good for their image.
thesyntaxera
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 882
To entertain your assumption, why must it be thousands of co-conspirators? The best explanation I have heard from a ct yet is that there wasn't thousands of people to keep quiet, and the "conspiracy" was simply the upper floors of the executive branch not doing the job they were supposed to....going so far to suggest that they had fore knowledge, and let it happen. Which to me looking at all of the factors seems most likely.
Speculate on the motives if you like, but if you want to just look at the presented data that is verifiable this is the picture that is painted..there is just no way to prove it 100%.
I did, it is nicely outlined in the wiki article in a easy to read format...are your eyes not working? Besides 3 of the 5 links are wiki articles which means you should not have to sift through a whole lot of material, as it is all right there.
First off, the data isn't any more "bad" than the data you prize, and second, no I am not saying look at all the data no matter how ridiculous. I am saying look at all the data..period, cast off what is unverifiable, and then scrutinize the rest.
I think it's funny that you guys make fun of Alex Jones. Don't get me wrong, he is wacked. However, for every claim he makes, there is documentation, either in official documents, or news stories...the point being, the only evidence you have is that which was issued by the government, specifically people appointed by the supposed conspirators, which doesn't help you in convincing anyone...
from memory I think I saw the NIST page, and 911myths...anything else I missed?
If you think that these two websites are going to overturn all of the claims in the wiki article and convince anyone that the official story is true, I think you are mistaken.
The world is a really pretty place when it's not all black and white. Besides, I didn't know there was hope for me, I thought I was just getting picked on by people who have nothing better to do at work than troll blogs.
Besides, you can't prove there was a passport in the first place, and you can't tell me where it is now, and you can't tell me how a passport flew out of a pocket, through the plane, through the building, through the fire that was hot enough to weaken the steel, and then to land on the ground, get buried in rubble, then be found in mint condition a short time later just in time to identify Al-qaeda as a suspect they already new about.
I would also like to add to the challenge, even more specifics...
In these videos by your much loved friend Alex Jones, there are a lot of claims. Just about each one has a document or some type of verification that is trackable..ie not invented...and regardless of what you think of his tactics or approach, I am asking you to debate the information, not him.
http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911
http://www.archive.org/details/911theRoadtoTyranny
So if you can fully debunk with facts the claims in the wiki article and the claims in these videos, I will fully withdraw from this debate, and accept the official story as the way it is.
Fair enough...?
CurtC
Illuminator
It seems likely to you that higher-ups in the executive branch knew about the attacks but decided to let them happen? You must be extremely paranoid. I don't really mean that to be an insult, but it's just how I see it.
Of those three Wikipedia articles, the first one ("9/11 conspiracy theories") is the most relevant. However, it's a huge laundry list of everything an insane person could possibly dream up. There's too much crap there to have a discussion around. Please narrow it down to a handful that you think are most credible.
That can be proved to anyone with functioning critical thinking skills. Its find was documented. To your way of thinking, you couldn't prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists, because I've never seen it with my own eyes.
Sure, it flew out of a pocket of a shredded jacket, got carried in the tons of debris that swept through the building (the fires were not yet burning, or had just barely started). From there, the only possible thing that could happen to it would be to end up on the ground, the most likely thing then would be to get buried in rubble from the collapse. What part of this do you have trouble accepting?
Last edited:
Hell, if they were that good the Iraq war would have ended on the 4th of July and they really would have had Osama in Guantanamo, all ready to be paraded up Broadway two days before our election!
Then why do you keep trotting out thoroughly debunked crap like explosives in the Trade Center? Yeah, I know, I know, you keep claiming that you, personally, don't necessarily believe it. But then you trot it out AGAIN. You are, intentionally in my eyes, conflating a bizillion crazy claims which run from the completely disproven to the mostly disproven to the speculative to the proven (note: I mentioned that I agree that the FAA and the airlines erred on the issue of cockpit door protection and proffered a reasonable explanation as to why -- that disappeared from your litany instantly. Why don't you want to discuss claims on which there is at least a basic factual agreement?).
So balls to the wall time, troll. What do YOU believe? What MIGHT you believe if you had more evidence? What do you believe does not have a satisfactory explanation?
"Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations."
It was only by chance I caught the whole thing live from the moment CNN started broadcasting the tower on fire, and I have to admit, I never expected either to collapse. When it did, I was startled how it came straight down, and so briefly after it was hit. When the second came down just as cleanly as a controlled demolition, I thought this was very suspicous. Especially considering the manner in which they were hit. If the buildings were designed to collapse this way, which I haven't ever heard mentioned, it was one heck of an engineering feat to work properly under those circumstances.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, sha...shame on you.." - George W. Bush
It was only by chance I caught the whole thing live from the moment CNN started broadcasting the tower on fire, and I have to admit, I never expected either to collapse. When it did, I was startled how it came straight down, and so briefly after it was hit. When the second came down just as cleanly as a controlled demolition, I thought this was very suspicous. Especially considering the manner in which they were hit. If the buildings were designed to collapse this way, which I haven't ever heard mentioned, it was one heck of an engineering feat to work properly under those circumstances.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, sha...shame on you.." - George W. Bush
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
SirPhilip, if I may ask, how did you expect a building like the WTC to collapse if not straight down? On what did you base this expectation?
I was expecting an area above the upper tower to perhaps collapse, or in a worst case scenario, buckle and fall off. The way the top area near evenly collapsed the lower ones just looked odd. So someone could be forgiven for wondering if it was Intelligenty designed (all puns intended).
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I was expecting an area above the upper tower to perhaps collapse, or in a worst case scenario, buckle and fall off. The way the top area near evenly collapsed the lower ones just looked odd. So someone could be forgiven for wondering if it was Intelligenty designed (all puns intended).
Well, the towers did visibly buckle before they collapsed, I understand. It's just that they didn't buckle far before the supports failed at the points of impact, and at that point the whole top section fell straight down.
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.
That doesn't explain WTC7 of course, which just burned and collapsed. I've never heard a terribly detailed story about how it went down. The sane reports I have read that mention it at all seem to think that burning debris from the initial impacts, debris from the collapse of the two big towers and runaway oil fires explain it. On the other hand (based on a recent discussion I had elsewhere) I believe some non-woo people think this explanation is insufficient and suspect that WTC7 was built by the Dodgy Brothers.
thesyntaxera
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 882
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_plan.jpg
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
There are some problems with this idea though. Namely the design of the building doesn't support that idea at all. The floors of the building were not a stack of concrete as you seem to be suggesting with your martial arts analogy. They are an intricate frame work of steel, with a central support column of 40+ steel beams that only got wider the closer you got to the ground.
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.
I am not familiar, but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking.
Lastly, steel reinforced buildings would never shatter in this manner from just a collapse, you would think that the steel would bend and twist all up if it was going to fall down...but this last point is debatable I suppose.
Perhaps because extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. It seems only reasonable to expect it to be a lot of work to examine. If you are unwilling to do that, then the honest answer is simply "I don't believe you". And you have honestly admitted that you have not examined all the evidence.
I understand it is hard to debunk the evidence, particularly, as you say, much of it is insane ranting. But many who have attempted to debunk it have come out of the process with a different perspective.
If one is to be open-minded one has to admit a conspiracy as a possibility, even if you prescribe it an extra-ordinarily low probability of it being true.
Believing in a conspiracy requires an extra-ordinary shift of perspective and requires one to re-evaluate a lot of beliefs. So, if you are honest, you have to carefully sift through a large amount of information, misinformation and speculation to truly evaluate the claim.
Absolutely, otherwise each time you can come up with many different explanations, which are not overall consistent. And that is exactly what is missing in the case of the official story. An overall consistent explanation.
Only when you take all the data together does it become clear that a conspiracy is the simplest, and most readily understandable explanation.
Yeah, much of the data is poor, but you can use it to produce hypotheses, which you can later test. You really have to act as a dectective, which means throwing out all pre-conceptions, and reconstructing events from scratch.
For example you could start with the allegation that the jets sent out to intercept the planes were deliberately delayed.
Then you can look at all the newspaper articles which cover the timing of when the jets took off and how long they took and what speed they flew. This is all using newspaper and government sources. Then you can start putting together a picture of what happenned. Of course, it turns out to be inconsistent, so you start to understand that not all the information we have from official or media sources is entirely accurate. Then there's not much more you can do with that and you have to continue with a different topic.
Eventually a picture emerges, and it takes a while to assimilate into your own reality. Eventually things make a lot more sense.
Of course this takes patience, but I don't know what else to suggest if you want to know the truth.
CurtC
Illuminator
So please explain this simple, readily understandable conspiracy to use slow types. As Ed keeps asking, who, why, and how was it kept secret?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Intricate frameworks of steel break up too if you put enough pressure on them, and while the buildings may have widened the column of rubble falling on them gained weight at the same time.
I don't see how this presents a problem. This looks like another instance of the argument from uninformed incredulity: not knowing anything about the matter it looks funny to you, therefore there is an elaborate conspiracy afoot which you have cleverly detected.
This is not enough of an argument, or enough evidence, to make a rational person cry conspiracy.
Unless you plan to argue that all firefighters are omniscient and possessed of flawless judgement, the simplest explanation for such radio chatter is that the firefighters in question just happened to be wrong. Have you asked a firefighter if they are ever wrong about such on-the-spot judgements?
Well, if you don't even know that (and it is high school physics if not primary school physics) maybe you shouldn't be positioning yourself as an informed judge of engineering. Steel conducts heat very well. Make of it what you will.
You would think that based on what? I'm not saying I know you to be wrong from first principles, but given that you know even less than I do about physics and materials science how do you come to such a conclusion?
Edited to fix munged quote
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
But concrete might actually have done better in that situation.
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html