Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Its easy enough to control a plane by computer control. Its basicly what autopilot does anyway. Besides its not like its trying to do any complex like landing, it just needs to slam into a building.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its easy enough to control a plane by computer control. Its basicly what autopilot does anyway. Besides its not like its trying to do any complex like landing, it just needs to slam into a building.

Imagine how hard it would be to pull that off. Plenty of workers on the planes would know the pilots aren't there. Air traffic control would know that they aren't talking to the pilots. People working on the runway would look inside the airplanes and see that pilots are in there. Maintenance workers would see that the cockpit has some crazy extra equipment in it. There is no way the government could pull that off without a lot of people noticing.

Thats not really true. No one is really watching the cockpit. Once they go in there and lock the door. Basicly you really only need someone to say they are talking to the pilots and maybe a boss to change a few things on a schedule so no one notices. Thats all it really takes, two people.

As for all the equipment, it may be possible to do it with very little or no changes. And if it not, your having a maintenance put it in anyway so no chance anyone else is going to see it.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats not really true. No one is really watching the cockpit. Once they go in there and lock the door. Basicly you really only need someone to say they are talking to the pilots and maybe a boss to change a few things on a schedule so no one notices. Thats all it really takes, two people.

As for all the equipment, it may be possible to do it with very little or no changes. And if it not, your having a maintenance put it in anyway so no chance anyone else is going to see it.

I'm confused. Are you saying this is what happened, or are you just saying its a possibility? What about the phone calls from Flight 93. We know there was a hostile takeover.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats not really true. No one is really watching the cockpit. Once they go in there and lock the door. Basicly you really only need someone to say they are talking to the pilots and maybe a boss to change a few things on a schedule so no one notices. Thats all it really takes, two people.

As for all the equipment, it may be possible to do it with very little or no changes. And if it not, your having a maintenance put it in anyway so no chance anyone else is going to see it.

Flag people on the runway communicate with the pilots using signals, and several people in air traffic control talk to them. And the plane workers know the pilots personally and know when they are not there.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

What about the phone calls from Flight 93. We know there was a hostile takeover.

Yeah, that too.


If the conspiracy really did happen and was pulled off so well, it is the most impressive thing I have ever heard of. It is about the most evil thing I have ever heard of too.

I am just saying its possible.

If you notice, "Universal Mind's" posts are usually excessively wordy for their lack of substantive content, almost never contain reputable sources, (or even any source) and often contain logical fallacies (the simplest of which he doesn't acknowledge or probably even comprehend).

It is a fallacy, therefore irrelevant improper reasoning, to argue as UM does, that because there are not "millions" of scientists or other experts saying that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives that this counts against this theory. This is such a terrible and arbitrary argument its hard to believe it is even seriously being used. On the contrary, we should expect politically disruptive theories to be vehemently opposed by officials and very hesitantly acknowledged by the relevant experts.

The controlled demolition theory of the WTC buildings has already been proven by experts, (hundreds if not thousands of them). If one wishes to argue against their proof, which is based in science and logic, then they must use logic and scientific reasoning to do so.

Again, they should start with any argument or scientific article written in the Journal of 911 Studies, or found in the group Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf


The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti, ME

9/11 – Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations
Frank Legge (Ph D)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...olition_20.pdf


Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Please, UM, or Half Dreaming, or other people violently reacting to the 911 Truth movement, just engage any of these articles, or any of the arguments found on the AE91truth.org site, and not your own illogical concoctions. And others, whether you agree or not, critical engagement with the work of experts is always productive.

There weren't any explosives in the basement. How many times do I have to mention that the bottom floors and basement were the very last to go?

The hole in the Pentagon was the exact size of the cabin of the 757 that hit it.

Building 7 fell hours after the attacks. The massive amount of explosives it would have taken to destroy that building was never heard. The explosives would have made a louder noise than the actual building falling.

Osama bin Laden, the architect/terrorist, confessed to the attacks, assuming the wack-ass theory that al Qaeda doesn't exist isn't true.

The phone conversations of Flight 93 indicate Arabic speaking people taking over the plane.

Last of all, and my favorite, the 9/11 Commission Report knows better than you do. 585 pages of "9/11 Truth" beats the crap out of your "expert opinions". 1200 interviews in 10 countries, and HALF A MILLION documents came up with our "theory". What do you have on that? Read for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

The simple fact that your theories don't have as much support as mine proves which one is right. And my support isn't from a buch of rogue architects.

What about the bombings in London? Were they a conspiracy too?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

If you notice, "Universal Mind's" posts are usually excessively wordy for their lack of substantive content, almost never contain reputable sources, (or even any source) and often contain logical fallacies (the simplest of which he doesn't acknowledge or probably even comprehend).

It is a fallacy, therefore irrelevant improper reasoning, to argue as UM does, that because there are not "millions" of scientists or other experts saying that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives that this counts against this theory. This is such a terrible and arbitrary argument its hard to believe it is even seriously being used. On the contrary, we should expect politically disruptive theories to be vehemently opposed by officials and very hesitantly acknowledged by the relevant experts.

The controlled demolition theory of the WTC buildings has already been proven by experts, (hundreds if not thousands of them). If one wishes to argue against their proof, which is based in science and logic, then they must use logic and scientific reasoning to do so.

Again, they should start with any argument or scientific article written in the Journal of 911 Studies, or found in the group Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf


The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti, ME

9/11 – Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations
Frank Legge (Ph D)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...olition_20.pdf


Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Please, UM, or Half Dreaming, or other people violently reacting to the 911 Truth movement, just engage any of these articles, or any of the arguments found on the AE91truth.org site, and not your own illogical concoctions. And others, whether you agree or not, critical engagement with the work of experts is always productive.

Why do you always have to go into personal attacks? It's because your points lack substance. You insult me and throw negative labels at my arguments, but you never actually counter them. That's because you can't. And I did post an article from Popular Mechanics along with making many logical arguments about how the conspiracy hypothesis does not add up. Let's see you actually counter the arguments I have made, beyond saying the already made and countered point that some engineers have said they think there was a conspiracy. Again, I am talking about the masses of experts who easily understand what somebody like you could understand and the social phenomenon of the travel of important knowledge in the midst of the biggest news stories of all time. Review my arguments, and try to counter them. I don't think you can. Your hollow labels are vague and not backed up by specific arguments. Let's see what you can actually argue, not just assert.

And again, I am not a demolition expert, and I don't think you are either. We are not qualified to argue the demolition specifics because there are too many alternative explanations and factors to consider for us to form anything conclusive. The people in those videos are in the extreme minority and have nothing to do with my argument that the masses of experts would be creating chatter that has not been happening. I made many other arguments too. Let's see if you understand the concept of direct counterargument. Your hollow hostility is very weak.