Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Originally Posted by jedimind

Yea 9/11 was the most elaborate government conspiracy ever devised LMFAO. The American governement can't even organise the military effort in iraq yet you think they're able to carry out such a complicated plan.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3641

LoL

This is a simple logical fallacy...

...Not to mention completely proven wrong by the very fact that Operation Northwoods was not brought to public attention until 1999. Thus, Operation Northwoods proves that 1) the Pentagon does indeed have the technological and monetary capability to plan in detail a staged terrorist attack against the U.S. public. and 2) that this sort of activity can be kept secret for a very long time.

Now for those who think they can debunk the evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC, you must first engage that evidence, and not simply pretend it doesnt exist. Flat denials are not arguments. So..heres just a tiny fraction of the evidence, as presented by PhD professors with relevant experience:

Dr. Crocket Grabbe, winner of the National Science Foundation's Postdoctoral Fellowship, and teacher of graduate courses in Plasma Physics and Mathematical Physics recently wrote this:
Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf

Terry Morrone. Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University
Proof That The Thermal And Gravitational Energy
Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and WTC7
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ngWTCsteel.pdf

And again, heres the proof that there was in fact tons of molten iron and a govt offical's attempt to deny it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501


___________________________________

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/

There are two things I still haven't had explained to me.

1.) If speculating lay people in this thread can understand demolition so well that they know the WTC towers fell because of base explosions, then why are demolition experts and engineers all over the world not coming together by the millions and screaming that? Somebody here responded to that question by telling me that there are some engineers and demolition experts saying it. That doesn't answer my question. I am asking why they are not doing it by the millions. Why is there not a huge outcry by the construction/demolition masses about this? Why isn't there chatter at the dinner tables and bar circles of every construction expert and demolition expert in the world? A lot of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 keep making me ask questions like that. Here is another example...

2.) Why are Pentagon workers not screaming their heads off by the thousands that NO AIRPLANE hit the Pentagon when they were at work? If the biggest news story of all time involved my place of work and I didn't recall a big ass passenger airplane hitting the building where I was working, I would be on every talk show in the world talking about it. Thousands of my co-workers would be with me. Where are those people? If you believe in the conspiracy but think an airplane did hit the Pentagon, who the Hell was flying it? And what about the other three airplanes? Were at least four people willing to kill themselves so Bush and Cheney could get good oil company pay offs?

If somebody could clear up those two issues, I will be significantly closer to seeing things from the conspiracy theory point of view.

Obviously some thing hit the Pentagon, the people inside obviously wouldn't know what it is. If they did they were close enough to die as it hit them. Personally thats not something I even bother argueing about, since it has nothing to do with all the other facts. To often people go say they don't believe what happened at the pentago so refuse to listen to what happened to the towers, even though they are two different theroies which nothing to do with each other.

As for your other question, there isn't millions of engineers all around the world looking at it. Most probably didn't pay attention, believe what the government said and moved on, couldn't care less either way, or its really not there area of expertise. You can hardly say someone is lying because everyone doesn't agree with them, that makes no sense at all. Besides how do you know what they are talking about? We are talking about people who stepped forward to say it was demolition. Theres atleast 5 people for everyone who steps forward, that won't pubically say its because its not popular or they are scared, or think people will make fun of them.

It seems you always base your arguement on other people opinions instead of the facts. There are polls in new york and stuff where they got like 80% of the people said they thought the government was hiding stuff, but since its not on the news its not true right? Because if it was true the news would cover it? That is a flawed way of thinking.

Alric, your thinking is flawed. I am not just simply interested in public opinion. I am interested in the opinions of experts, and I am interested in whether or not people heard an airplane hit the Pentagon and other social factors that are relevant to this conspiracy stuff. That's not the same as giving a damn what somebody like you thinks about whether there was a 9/11 conspiracy.

If an airplane hit the Pentagon, people working there would know. We don't have 1/6 of the thousands of people working at the Pentagon saying that it was not hit by an airplane. We have 0/6. They were there, while average Joe on the street was not. The Pentagon has windows, a parking lot, air traffic controllers responsible for its area, cops that react to its criminal situations immediately, and workers who can go outside immediately and see if it was a metal ball on a crane that hit the Pentagon. How would all or practically all of those people miss a missile or metal ball or whatever? Why would the government roll dice like that? If something other than an airplane hit the Pentagon, it would be widely known. Please explain how it would not.

Also, we don't have 1 out of 6 engineers or demolition experts or construction foremen saying the biggest news story in history, which involves construction/demolition aspects and issues, is flawed. You know good and well that most of them give a damn on some level about the story, especially the American ones, especially the Americans in New York. Do you claim that all of them know what really happened and are too scared to talk, except a very tiny percentage of them which can be accounted for by the Bush hate cult factor? Why aren't the masses going off about it? You underestimate the phenomenon of grape vine talking. A few engineers talking would get enough engineers interested enough to do more talking, and it would be an enormous matter. It would make Watergate look like a jay walking incident in Hazelhurst, Mississippi. Public opinion by itself is unimportant to me, which is why just seeing non-experts in this thread talking about how a bunch of demolition and construction principles that I know very little about, while the masses of actual experts are close to completely silent, does not mean much to me and is not going to have me going after an engineering degree so I can get to the bottom of their non-expert claims. But psychology/sociology principles that I know for a fact exist (stuff I do know a lot about) and are not at play in a situation where they should be if the situation is actually real does have me calling bullshit on ideas. If I hear about a situation where I know certain social phenomena will result, and those social phenomena do not result, the idea that the situation happened will seem absurd.

Let's say that somebody claims hurricane Katrina was just a regular storm and never a category 5 hurricane, not even a category 1 hurricane. Suppose that the claim is that the government and media hyped it up to make it look like there was a hurricane. They might say the levee was blown up so there would be a flood so the government and media could say there was a hurricane. Now suppose that the claim is correct. Don't you think people in Mississippi and Louisiana would be all over the place going off about how there was no hurricane? Well, they're not doing it. What does that tell you? So this is not about mere public opinion. It's about social phenomena that do occur under certain circumstances. If A results in B, and B does not happen in a situation, then A did not happen in that situation. Do you understand?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

This is a simple logical fallacy...

...Not to mention completely proven wrong by the very fact that Operation Northwoods was not brought to public attention until 1999. Thus, Operation Northwoods proves that 1) the Pentagon does indeed have the technological and monetary capability to plan in detail a staged terrorist attack against the U.S. public. and 2) that this sort of activity can be kept secret for a very long time.

Now for those who think they can debunk the evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC, you must first engage that evidence, and not simply pretend it doesnt exist. Flat denials are not arguments. So..heres just a tiny fraction of the evidence, as presented by PhD professors with relevant experience:

Dr. Crocket Grabbe, winner of the National Science Foundation's Postdoctoral Fellowship, and teacher of graduate courses in Plasma Physics and Mathematical Physics recently wrote this:
Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf

Terry Morrone. Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University
Proof That The Thermal And Gravitational Energy
Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and WTC7
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ngWTCsteel.pdf

And again, heres the proof that there was in fact tons of molten iron and a govt offical's attempt to deny it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501

To UM, you committed two fallacies in each of your last two points, and answered neither of the above points posted by myself.

To argue that because only hundreds of prominent architects, engineers and physicists have made public statements or written scholarly articles, instead of the millions that are in existence, does not in any way provide evidence against the controlled demolition theory. It is very important to understand this as its a common fallacy promoted constantly on the internet.

The second point made by UM is also widely recognized as a strawman fallacy, since the first person to propose the missile theory for the Pentagon was Donald Rumsfeld. The idea was then promoted by a number of hoax artists pretending to be a part of the 911 Truth movement. This is called Psy-ops; where a wild theory is promoted by agents of disinformation to discredit the wider movement in which it is injected. Even if it were true that the vast majority of 911 researchers believe a missile hit the Pentagon (they definitely do not) it would be a fallacy of reasoning to discount all the other pieces of evidence based on the falsity of just one.

Personally, I think that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a government conspiracy to make them seem all-powerful.

The flaw with your arguement however is there is people who are running around complaining about it. You just call them crazy and move on however. Its easy to say no one is talking about it when you decide to ignore everyone with the 'wrong' view.

Originally Posted by Alric

The flaw with your arguement however is there is people who are running around complaining about it. You just call them crazy and move on however. Its easy to say no one is talking about it when you decide to ignore everyone with the 'wrong' view.

I said there are some. But I am talking about social phenomena that involve the masses. If you can figure out the demolition stuff, then every engineer, demolitionist, and construction foreman and supervisor in the world would have understood it in September of 2001. A two minute bar room conversation would result in every one of those people in the world knowing that the government's explanation is incorrect. That would turn into the biggest news story ever. I don't see any way around that. It would be like the government explaining how somebody died and using false medical science in the explanation. The entire medical community would pick up on that in a matter of days, and from there the whole world would know. So if the medical community at large doesn't do that, it means people posting in this thread so far generally would not have some keen understanding of any medical falsehoods the government is using. Think about that. We are talking about the biggest news event ever, and one that is at the root of a war my country is involved in. If there were construction/demolition falsehoods being used by the government that you and Memeticverb and others in this thread understand, how in the world would that not be getting screamed out by the masses of the actual experts? You're saying it, but they aren't? I don't come anywhere near seeing how that makes sense.

There are a lot of them that say it, your only problem is you don't believe there is 'enough' of them saying it. How many is enough? Where is the line between it being true and false based on how many agree? Does 51% of them believing it make it true. Do you only need 40% or do you need nearly all of them to say it before it is true?

Here is a question? How come the masses didn't raise up and ask what happen to building 7? Obviously it fell, thats a fact. Obviously it wasn't hit by a plane, that is a fact. All people agree on both of them but then you put them togather and you get, building 7 wasn't hit by anything yet it fell. The obvious question is why? Yet there are still people don't even know building 7 fell.

Originally Posted by Alric

There are a lot of them that say it, your only problem is you don't believe there is 'enough' of them saying it. How many is enough? Where is the line between it being true and false based on how many agree? Does 51% of them believing it make it true. Do you only need 40% or do you need nearly all of them to say it before it is true?

You are still misunderstanding my point. I am not saying popular belief means truth. I am saying that truth that is so accessible and easy to understand that even regular Joes on a lucid dreaming forum site can understand it will be understood by the masses of experts, and when that happens in the type of evil situation we are talking about and it is the biggest news story of all time, the expert chatter would be the loudest sound in the world. It is about a social phenomenon that is not happening, not that popular belief automatically means truth. If what you are saying about stuff that is so building construction 101 is true, experts who disagree with it should be very rare. I don't know what exact number I would put on it, but it would be something in the insignificant zone. Experts are often wrong, but not about stuff that is this easy for every single one of them. We are not talking about rocket science or brain surgery principles that are debatable among people who understand those things. We are talking about no-brainer stuff for people who understand the basics. Something like what you are saying would be huge. And why would the government lie about something so easy for the experts to figure out in the biggest news story in history?

Again... Who could have possibly been flying the airplanes? What suicide terrorists would be willing to die for Bush? Doesn't it make much more sense that they were suicide bombers dying for Allah and attacking their #1 enemy? The latter is so much more plausible.

Originally Posted by Alric

Here is a question? How come the masses didn't raise up and ask what happen to building 7? Obviously it fell, thats a fact. Obviously it wasn't hit by a plane, that is a fact. All people agree on both of them but then you put them togather and you get, building 7 wasn't hit by anything yet it fell. The obvious question is why? Yet there are still people don't even know building 7 fell.

I am not an expert on how it works, but I think it was supposed to be caused by the debris of two of the tallest buildings in the world crumbling and slamming to the ground. I will ask my construction supervisor friend about it some time. Or do you think I should ask a bar tender?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

To argue that because only hundreds of prominent architects, engineers and physicists have made public statements or written scholarly articles, instead of the millions that are in existence, does not in any way provide evidence against the controlled demolition theory. It is very important to understand this as its a common fallacy promoted constantly on the internet.

That is not an argument. It is an assertion. Explain yourself. I am still waiting for a counterargument, not a mere contradiction.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

The second point made by UM is also widely recognized as a strawman fallacy, since the first person to propose the missile theory for the Pentagon was Donald Rumsfeld. The idea was then promoted by a number of hoax artists pretending to be a part of the 911 Truth movement. This is called Psy-ops; where a wild theory is promoted by agents of disinformation to discredit the wider movement in which it is injected. Even if it were true that the vast majority of 911 researchers believe a missile hit the Pentagon (they definitely do not) it would be a fallacy of reasoning to discount all the other pieces of evidence based on the falsity of just one.

That does not in any way counter my point. If you will read my post more carefully, you will see that question 2 was two part. I addressed one of the common hypotheses, which comes in many forms, not just a form involving the idea of a missile. The second part was meant for those who believe an airplane did hit the Pentagon but that the airplane was part of a government conspiracy. I asked who would be willing to die for whatever the "real" agenda was.

I am nowhere near being a construction or demolition expert. I have a learning disability when it comes to that stuff. I get dizzy thinking about how legos fit together. I am not going to argue about that stuff because I don't know how the buildings should have fallen. But my understanding of human behavior tells me that your conspiracy hypothesis doesn't add up. I know how hysterical society in general is, and I know how information travels in academic circles and in society in general. It is not traveling the way it would if what you are arguing were true. Did you read my Katrina analogy? Until you explain away my points about this, you are not going to convince me of anything, no matter how much you talk about this board going this way and that metal melting that way. I am not going to take an extreme minority's word for it. Now give me some direct counterarguments.

Originally Posted by Riley

Personally, I think that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a government conspiracy to make them seem all-powerful.

If it is, they are doing a great job of achieving the objective. I think it's funny to see people talk about what an absolute moron Bush is and then turn around and say he pulled off by far the most impressive conspiracy stunt in the history of the world. That reminds me of the South Park episode that's been brought up in this thread a few times.