Thread: 9/11 Truth

Yes we are all going to dress up as rabbits and protest every month. Anyone care to explain to me how the buildings collapsed? I've provided the links that more or less exposes and sums up the reality of the situation.

I can't fault you there, UM, but posting links doesn't remedy the problem of ineptitude. Silliness is, like it or not, the best we have when the debate is in regard to subjects beyond our expertise. I'm optimistic, though, that even us lower-tier intellectuals can make sense out of the information from other sources and represent it in our posts accurately enough to be useful in debate.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Sorry. You know how good Universal Mind is at distracting me.

The reason why I provide the links is for those that want to research it. Then they can enter the debate if they wish in an informed manner. It also refutes a lot of stuff that magazines like popular mechanics and other debunking sites listed by UM make up.

R.D.735 you talked a lot about chemicals. But I don't think you explained exactly how steel can melt or weaken even, and give way, just from jetfuel in 1 hour and collapse the building. That to me just does not make sense and it's never happened in history to any building. Fire never has collapsed a high rise building. And I certainly don't think these two towers are made especially weak. I think the innovations by the engineers actually made them stronger than normal at the time.

You didn't read the links, or else you are ignoring what they say. State where they are wrong. The WTC link explains exactly why the steel did not have to be melted all the way for the buildings to collapse. Give a rebuttal, not just a picture of some guy in an Easter Bunny outfit. You begged for answers to your stuff that is not evidence of an inside job, and now you have it.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Great post, by the way. It's great to see the physical evidence on the other side.

Going point by point, the heat reached by combustibles in the rubble pile had a good possibility of reaching 1000 C, given that NIST determined that a simple couch set on fire could produce temperatures as high as 1100 C. Temperatures of about 1800 C were observed in the towers for the first ten minutes, and about 1000 C after that until they collapsed. Factoring the oxidation of the heated steel and the insular effect of the debris, it is well within possibility to see molten sulfidated iron in the rubble. In the time between impact and collapse, though, I'm not sure if there was much sulfidated iron at all. This leads us to the molten material seen flowing out of the towers.

Could you provide a source for this? By what method did they determine that 1800C was reached?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The NIST report suggests that the flow may be aluminum mixed with organics and glass, but doesn't actually give an answer in the affirmative. Aluminum, of course, is silver when molten and doesn't glow, whereas iron does glow orange, as observed, but aluminum does have a silvery color when it cools, as the liquid seems to. The color observed could be due to a small flow of aluminum mixed with a great deal of other very hot materials, all on fire. Glass, for example, glows orange when hot. As much as the next person, though, I would like to see an experiment performed on this by an independent scientific group, just to be sure. That is not to say that thermite isn't also a guess as to the identity of the flow.

I believe this was refuted by a team of scientists led by Dr. Steven Jones at BYU. They tried mixing molten aluminum at melting point with all sorts of building and office materials and found that not only did it not mix very well, but that it did not change the silver color of the molten aluminum. Looking at the wavelength of the tons of liquid metal pouring out of the South tower, it is obvious that it is iron, and just as obvious that it has all the visible characteristics of a thermite-like reaction.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

In the case of WTC7 my earlier points, that the structure's design made it vulnerable to just the sort of progressive collapse that was observed, still stand.

I really would like to see where anyone with the proper credentials has given a scientific case for this assertion. Over 200 relevant experts have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and that a symmetrical collapse would have been impossible given the asymmetrical design of the building.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Regarding the dust, I've read that the sphericles observed in the WTC dust can be explained by the iron and sulfur content of the buildings themselves, present in many materials that made up the structures, without resorting to thermite reactions. Concrete, for example, could easily contain such particles. In order that the sphericles be good evidence, it must be shown that their concentration was far too high to be explained by the structural materials, but as far as I can tell thermite is argued based on their mere existence.

I have read that as well. But I dont believe it because no one saying it has ever provided any scientific experiment or evidence that would make it plausible. For one, the sulfur has to somehow become dissociated from the gypsum and find itself in such a form that is viable for a thermate reaction, but then it also has to combine in the perfect amounts with aluminum as well as iron oxide, and then find itself ignited by the right temperature of fuse.

The presence of thermite/thermate analogs is not argued on the mere existence of these sphericles (which do prove some eutectic reaction occurred) but on the very specific composition of them and their prevalence in dust that was found blocks away from the WTC site. They bear the virtual fingerprint of a thermate reaction so we know something very similar occured - especially since jet fuel cant produce molten iron in an open air office fire.

Steven Jones' lectures are very good if you are interested enough to watch them, and he covers all the govt reports that claim to be scientific. Why didnt they simply test for arson? (thermate, other explosives). Why did they restrict themselves to only addressing the initiation of collapse, and not the collapse itself? Why have they ignored WTC7?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

Not trying to be too one sided on this issue, but it seems like the more educated people in engineering/physics/demolition are always for the inside job story.

Originally Posted by Aldrich

http://youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

Not trying to be too one sided on this issue, but it seems like the more educated people in engineering/physics/demolition are always for the inside job story.

No, there are like 200 of them in the world. That supervast majority doesn't think anything of the inside job idea.

Please link me to more than 200 demolition/engineering experts that claim 9/11 was not an inside job.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Please link me to more than 200 demolition/engineering experts that claim 9/11 was not an inside job.

Please link me to 200 scientists who argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please link me to 200 scientists who argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

LOL. What does any of the most recent conversation have to do with the FSM? Where did that come from?

I do have to say, UM, that you are constantly talking about how many of the professionals say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but I have never seen anything but a few, here or there. You constantly ask for people to present accredited support for their claims, but on this one, you haven't really produced.

Your last claim was "That supervast majority doesn't think anything of the inside job idea." So, please (for the sake of balanced argument) present something, to that end, that rivals the 200+ professionals that do think something of it, or acknowledge it as the assumption that I believe it is.

And I don't think "Well, if they did, we would have heard it from them by now" is any support for that claim, as it is nothing but speculation.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I do have to say, UM, that you are constantly talking about how many of the professionals say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but I have never seen anything but a few, here or there. You constantly ask for people to present accredited support for their claims, but on this one, you haven't really produced.

No, I have never said that. What I actually have said is that the general world of engineers and other demolition experts see the 9/11 inside job idea the way scientists generally see the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They see it as too ridiculous to even talk about it. Remember that 9/11 is the biggest news story in history.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What I actually have said is that the general world of engineers and other demolition experts see the 9/11 inside job idea the way scientists generally see the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They see it as too ridiculous to even talk about it.

Exactly. (My fault for wording it wrong)...

Please provide objective support for your claim that the reason we haven't heard from the "majority" of general engineers, chiming in on the 9/11 issue, is because they see it as too ridiculous to even talk about.

The enormity of the story is not evidence to that claim. An simple assumption of what might happen, in response to such a story, is not significantly indicative of the reasoning behind the reactions to (or lack thereof) that story. That would fall under the category of speculation. Do you have anything more substantial to support that claim?

Is there a list of names of all scientists that do and do not give the inside job story credibility? How many scientists vouching for the conspiracy are necessary to prove it? The answer is that it does not matter at all. Science stands by experiment, not by the number of scientists or engineers who believe a certain idea.

Addressing memeticverb's points, though: I'm not sure how the temperature of 1800 Cwas calculated, honestly. Perhaps it was inferred by evidence in the rubble or, in the unusual case, with an infrared camera at the time of the event. I did see the Steve Jones video. It was very interesting, but I found it somewhat inconclusive. The details of the aluminum mixture are not explicit, and there is no Mythbusters-esque replication of the observed phenomenon, which would have been useful. Though the evidence against the aluminum theory is compelling, it doesn't address the deficiencies of the thermite/thermate hypothesis that I mentioned earlier.

The structural argument for WTC7 remains quite unchallenged, though. The Popular Mechanics site has some useful information, and the NIST report no doubt includes the same.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5

What evidence refutes this collapse theory? Is it factually correct, but incomplete, or is it totally wrong? Finally, regarding the sphericles, one would point out that the thermite/thermate composition is exactly what one would expect, even if no thermite/thermate was involved. The process of making concrete involves high temperatures and a variety of compounds. Portland cement is one example:

From Madehow.com
Preparing Portland cement

* 1 The limestone, silica, and alumina that make up Portland cement are dry ground into a very fine powder, mixed together in predetermined proportions, preheated, and calcined (heated to a high temperature that will burn off impurities without fusing the ingredients). Next the material is burned in a large rotary kiln at 2,550 degrees Fahrenheit (1,400 degrees Celsius). At this temperature, the material partially fuses into a substance known as clinker. A modern kiln can produce as much as 6,200 tons of clinker a day.
* 2 The clinker is then cooled and ground to a fine powder in a tube or ball mill. A ball mill is a rotating drum filled with steel balls of different sizes (depending on the desired fineness of the cement) that crush and grind the clinker. Gypsum is added during the grinding process. The final composition consists of several compounds: tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and tetracalcium aluminoferrite.

If iron, aluminum, and sulfur are present during the manufacturing process, it makes sense that eutectic iron-aluminum-sulfate particles would form. The question is this: what would their composition be? If their composition is fairly random, some of them are bound to match thermite/thermate products. Considering that thermate is only ~2% sulfur by weight, this seems a likely explanation for the sphericles, unless there are too many of them in dense concentrations around the collapse site.

Do your research, all of the US presidents have the same bloodline, all related...you can trace them back to charlemagne (Presidents are selected, not elected). ET's came and interbred with humans, the interbred races were put into positions of power. That story has been in every major religion as a common theme. The Windors are a reptillion race. America was never and still isn't free. Beat that.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Exactly. (My fault for wording it wrong)...

Please provide objective support for your claim that the reason we haven't heard from the "majority" of general engineers, chiming in on the 9/11 issue, is because they see it as too ridiculous to even talk about.

The enormity of the story is not evidence to that claim. An simple assumption of what might happen, in response to such a story, is not significantly indicative of the reasoning behind the reactions to (or lack thereof) that story. That would fall under the category of speculation. Do you have anything more substantial to support that claim?

Logic is not assumption. Logic is the measure of reality. Demolition experts who have anything to say about this issue are extraordinarily rare. The issue concerns a supposedly false official demolition report regarding the biggest news story in history. Put those two facts together. The enormous world of demolition experts, with very few exceptions, does not even comment on the idea that a demolition report concerning the biggest news story of all time is false. Have they had a rally in your town yet? Have they had a million engineer march anywhere in the country yet? What about anywhere in the world? Is there some big petition out there where as little as ten thousand engineers demand an explanation? Have your town's demolition experts been getting the word out on the underground that the government lied about the biggest news story of all time? Has that been happening anywhere? No. The silence is deafening. That proves their lack of concern for the idea. Can you think of a plausible rival explanation? Fill in the blank with something that even begins to be plausible: They actually are very concerned about it, yet only a microscopic minority ever talks about it because __________________________________________________ _____________.

Can you think of anything? The concern is not there. They don't give a shit. They do not take the issue seriously. Are Memeticverb and Mystic noticing something the actual experts are not noticing? I highly doubt it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Logic is not assumption. Logic is the measure of reality. Demolition experts who have anything to say about this issue are extraordinarily rare. The issue concerns a supposedly false official demolition report regarding the biggest news story in history. Put those two facts together. The enormous world of demolition experts, with very few exceptions, does not even comment on the idea that a demolition report concerning the biggest news story of all time is false. Have they had a rally in your town yet? Have they had a million engineer march anywhere in the country yet? What about anywhere in the world? Is there some big petition out there where as little as ten thousand engineers demand an explanation? Have your town's demolition experts been getting the word out on the underground that the government lied about the biggest news story of all time? Has that been happening anywhere? No. The silence is deafening. That proves their lack of concern for the idea. Can you think of a plausible rival explanation? Fill in the blank with something that even begins to be plausible: They actually are very concerned about it, yet only a microscopic minority ever talks about it because __________________________________________________ _____________.

Can you think of anything? The concern is not there. They don't give a shit. They do not take the issue seriously. Are Memeticverb and Mystic noticing something the actual experts are not noticing? I highly doubt it.

Bit of an essay, but here we go...

Logic, in the human sense, is the measure of subjective reality - which deals heavily in assumption. All assumptions, themselves, are based on logic. What matters is whether or not that logic (when measured objectively) is sound. A failure to acknowledge that simple fact does not bode well for your side of the argument.

I don't know (as you seem to) how large the "world of demolition experts" is. I could no more say that we have 200 demolition "experts" in these united states, than I can say that we have 6,000,000. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how "enormous" the world of demolition "experts" is, not that it matters, all that much. (In this, I completely agree with R.D. 735)

Let's broaden the concept a little bit: Political and professional ridicule.

In professional, scholarly circles (including sciences of all genres, whether physical, mathematical, political, whatever...), to go too far against the grain is to jeopardize one's entire life (career, lively-hood, peer-relations, etc). To spend even the slightest bit of time researching the political influence that stains "professional," mainstream information, is to know that not all potential truths are voiced. In matters of David vs. Goliath (David being "fringe" theory and Goliath being the majority-supported, "accepted" theory, which are often called "truths") David will always be stomped into the ground, even if it is he that fights for the side of objective truth. Dissent, when backed by a majority, is a much more effective weapon than truth, when those that voice the "truth" are so small in numbers. This truth, alone, damages your idea of "well if there was a conspiracy, everyone who saw it would be running through the streets screaming it."

Many people that work in the scientific community are intellectually bound by powers-that-be. All it takes is a single "fringe" theory, to be shunned by professional circles and considered either a radical, zealot or idiot - even if that fringe theory happens to be true. Do you not know this, by now? People have lost their jobs, their statuses, their very credentials in life, over going too hard against the grain. Corporations/organizations/scientific-circles have reputations to uphold, and to become a threat to that reputation is to invite a backlash with almost no equal. You may be fighting for something that is objectively true, but if the rest of the world sees it as bullshit (even without research proving it to be bullshit), you can scream and rally as long and as hard as you want. Do you know what you get out of it? Ridicule. Dissent. Discredit. Hate.

Look at quantum physics:

Quantum physics is the potential "new frontier" in physical sciences. Experiments have been done that have completely demolished Newtonian principles - destroyed them to a point of obscurity. They have been replicated and re-replicated to a point where denying them seems nothing more than an attempt to hold-fast to the principles of yesteryear. What would such a thing mean? That would mean that those people who have worked for generations, to truly understand the workings of the physical world, understand much less than they think they do. At the same time, it is calling out the significance of countless professionals in the field, and threatening to render their research as obsolete, inadequate...wrong. Do you know how hard people will fight against that? Do you realize how hard someone that has the power to "shut you up," if you pose a thread to their very credentials as a scholar, will fight you if you bring to light information that could do just that? How hard is it to turn someone that brings forth information, that is against or beyond everything that the "world" already takes to heart as fact, into a laughing stock? An outcast? A nobody?

Not. Hard.

Do I see scientists running through my neighborhoods screaming that quantum physics are the new frontier? Do I see them rallying together in a "million physicist march?" No. In fact, as far as the American educational system goes, I still see more scientists trying to shy away from advocating the concept of quantum physics than I see those who are embracing and researching it. No scholar wants to be laughed off of their perch. Ever hear of a comfort zone? I've "heard" you say that you are familiar with psychological concepts, so I'm sure that is not new to you. It is human nature to fall into one's comfort zone, and a select few have what it takes to break free of it and expand to new territories, often at the risk of consequences that can range from political dissent to physical harm.

Marinate on that for a moment, and see if that does not deflate your view of "well more people would come forward if..."

But I said all that to say this...

They actually are very concerned about it, yet only a microscopic minority ever talks about it because

Because it is a lot harder to convince the world of something it does not want to believe, than it is to be quiet, and not risk being metaphorically stoned to death, or burned at the stake.

(And, just to cover my own ass, I'm not saying that is what is definitely happening, but you wanted a plausible answer, and I believe you just got one.)

59,500 engineering graduates in the United States each year, and that number is down 20%. That is just graduates in a year. Other countries have higher numbers of graduates per year. China- 207,500. India- 100,000. Japan- 103,200. Those are the statistics of four countries.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=9&gl=us

If the demolition specifics are so easy to notice that amateurs on the internet can notice and understand them, the outrageous numbers of engineers would have no trouble coming together and making the points without ridicule. One million engineer march would open most people's eyes and make heroes out of the engineers that brought the truth to everybody's attention about 9/11. They would not be stoned to death. So I don't think the idea that they would be is a plausible explanation for their silence. This is 9/11 we are talking about. You can't keep a group that enormous silent about something so major. I know construction experts, some of them very well. I have gotten messed up and talked about the government with some of them on many occasions, and some of them even hate Bush. Not one of them has ever brought up a 9/11 inside job. The only plausible explanation I see for the vast silence is that 9/11 inside job is not an issue serious enough for them to even discuss. It is in the realm of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the idea that Elvis is living in Michigan.

Quantum physics is highly accepted today, and scientists would not need to knock on your door to tell you it is real so you could understand that you are dealing with a dangerous and deceptive government who lied about what happened in the very tragic biggest news story in history. Scientists are not even afraid to admit that they believe the theories. There is no comparison.

I disagree that logic is subjective. The laws of logic are absolute. A = A, no matter who does or does not recognize it. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. That is a reality that cannot be changed by personal perception or opinion.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

59,500 engineering graduates in the United States each year, and that number is down 20%. That is just graduates in a year. Other countries have higher numbers of graduates per year. China- 207,500. India- 100,000. Japan- 103,200. Those are the statistics of four countries.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=9&gl=us

And with the number of graduates taken into consideration, perhaps you can tell me how many of them are actively taking part in investigating the physical factors of the 9/11 collapses, as opposed to taking the road that many Americans are taking by considering it to be "too personal" a subject to even put any thought into investigating?

In other words:
Numbers themselves don't necessarily matter. You cannot account for the mind-states of other people, especially over something as personal as an attack on fellow-Americans. I believe (just as you believe the contrary) that emotional and/or professional investment into a certain stance, whatever it may be, most effectively over-rides logic, even in the most brilliant of scholars. Your refusal to consider this, to me, is more deeply rooted in assumption than objective truth. If you were seriously considering it, I would believe that you wouldn't be so stead-fast in your assumption that "the majority of experts would do this." In this, I guess we will just disagree, because I can see how intensely you will hang on to your theory.

I disagree that logic is subjective. The laws of logic are absolute. A = A, no matter who does or does not recognize it. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. That is a reality that cannot be changed by personal perception or opinion.

In the case of assuming how a stranger will act in any given situation, regardless of their background (which is the case, here), those variables aren't as static as they are in a mathematical equation.

You are using it to say something like:

If you are a physicist or demo expert (A) = you will, undoubtedly, launch an investigation into the physical events of 9/11 (B), and launching an investigation into 9/11 (B) = you will conclude it was not an inside job (C), then if you are a physicist or demo expert (A) = you will conclude 9/11 was an inside job (C).

That is simply wrong-headed, when looking at the complexity of individual human reaction.

When dealing with the psychology of the masses, whether professionals or not, no static equation such as that is going to yield the same result in every case.

It's somewhat true that science as an institution is bound to explore things conservatively, because the results of experiment must be provable in order to be useful. However, it is also very predisposed towards exploring hypotheses that have interesting implications. In the 9/11 theories, the lack of large numbers of mainstream scientists arguing for or against the 9/11 conspiracy indicates a lack in one or both of these factors. I would suggest that testing the 9/11 conspiracy is lacking in both areas to some degree. Scientists and engineers may perceive an abundance of evidence refuting the conspiracy and find proving it false to be a trivial and tedious. It may also be the case that the minority who have voiced their support of the 9/11 conspiracy have bet their careers upon its validity, and are reluctant to dismiss it for that reason. No one argues that there is not enough evidence to judge either way, so we can safely discount uncertainty as a motive for silence.

In any case, I'd prefer not to debate about why other people believe what they believe. It's a terribly subjective way to argue for or against a theory.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

No one argues that there is not enough evidence to judge either way, so we can safely discount uncertainty as a motive for silence.

Quite the contrary. Almost every stark dissenter of the 9/11 conspiracy theories that I have encountered, since we've begun talking about it here at DV, has voiced just that very argument.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

In any case, I'd prefer not to debate about why other people believe what they believe. It's a terribly subjective way to argue for or against a theory.

That I do agree with. The only reason I brought it up was because UM (no offense, UM) is constantly taking the "so why don't X amount of experts speak up on it?" approach to discrediting the theory. I agree that, in the long run, it has no bearing on whether or not the theory is true. I just wanted to explain, in my opinion, why that particular argument does not discredit the theory.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And with the number of graduates taken into consideration, perhaps you can tell me how many of them are actively taking part in investigating the physical factors of the 9/11 collapses, as opposed to taking the road that many Americans are taking by considering it to be "too personal" a subject to even put any thought into investigating?

In other words:
Numbers themselves don't necessarily matter. You cannot account for the mind-states of other people, especially over something as personal as an attack on fellow-Americans. I believe (just as you believe the contrary) that emotional and/or professional investment into a certain stance, whatever it may be, most effectively over-rides logic, even in the most brilliant of scholars. Your refusal to consider this, to me, is more deeply rooted in assumption than objective truth. If you were seriously considering it, I would believe that you wouldn't be so stead-fast in your assumption that "the majority of experts would do this." In this, I guess we will just disagree, because I can see how intensely you will hang on to your theory.

No, I am not hanging on to my view because I am determined to intensely hang onto it. I am hanging on to this one part of my disagreement with the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense because there are millions of engineers in the world and hundreds of thousands of them in the United States alone and they are being silent about something that they would be able to notice and that at least some of their colleagues would have brought to their attention by now about the biggest news story in history and an attack that has us very worried and that is the basis of two wars we are involved in right now. This very thread shows you how determined many Americans are to point out where the government has screwed up, even on things where the government has not screwed up. Lack of denial about an angelic American government is widespread and often the polar opposite of denial. Lots of Americans who post in Extended Discussion are Hell bent on illustrating the idea that the United States is the most evil country in the world. I do not buy the idea that more than ninety-nine point however many nines percent of the hundreds of thousands of American engineers and millions of foreign engineers are completely ignoring the conspiracy stuff because they are in denial. The opinion polls on the American government here and abroad will show you just how much people are not clinging to an angelic view of the U.S. government, but you think the world's engineers might be in denial about a 9/11 conspiracy any way? How does that add up? Most of the world's engineers don't even live here. And that's just engineers. Construction supervisors don't have much to say about it at the pool hall or anywhere else either. Practically all of them see it as a non-issue.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In the case of assuming how a stranger will act in any given situation, regardless of their background (which is the case, here), those variables aren't as static as they are in a mathematical equation.

You are using it to say something like:

If you are a physicist or demo expert (A) = you will, undoubtedly, launch an investigation into the physical events of 9/11 (B), and launching an investigation into 9/11 (B) = you will conclude it was not an inside job (C), then if you are a physicist or demo expert (A) = you will conclude 9/11 was an inside job (C).

That is simply wrong-headed, when looking at the complexity of individual human reaction.

When dealing with the psychology of the masses, whether professionals or not, no static equation such as that is going to yield the same result in every case.

My mentioning of the transitive property of equality was an example of the absolute nature of logic, not a description of the specific law of logic that makes me think demolition experts would be making chatter loud enough to be at least noticed in regard to a government deception concerning the tragedy that is the biggest news story of all time. I also do not claim I can 100% conclude that aliens are not hypnotizing demolition experts into being quiet about something so huge or any other dreamable explanation. It is all about probability. It is like my point about the existence of God and other claims. Logic says that the idea that the world of engineers would be so quiet about something so enormous when they can easily understand whether structures could really fall and melt the way they reportedly did is an idea that is profoundly far fetched, like the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But this is just one small part of my disagreement with the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis. We have not even begun to get into issues of faked hijackings, how the planes were flown, why and how so many people got involved yet never leaked their roles, or the other issues. If you are one of the people who think the Pentagon was hit by an unreported missile, then we really have an interesting issue to get into.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I am not hanging on to my view because I am determined to intensely hang onto it. I am hanging on to this one part of my disagreement with the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense because there are millions of engineers in the world and hundreds of thousands of them in the United States alone and they are being silent about something that they would be able to notice and that at least some of their colleagues would have brought to their attention by now about the biggest news story in history and an attack that has us very worried and that is the basis of two wars we are involved in right now. This very thread shows you how determined many Americans are to point out where the government has screwed up, even on things where the government has not screwed up. Lack of denial about an angelic American government is widespread and often the polar opposite of denial. Lots of Americans who post in Extended Discussion are Hell bent on illustrating the idea that the United States is the most evil country in the world. I do not buy the idea that more than ninety-nine point however many nines percent of the hundreds of thousands of American engineers and millions of foreign engineers are completely ignoring the conspiracy stuff because they are in denial. The opinion polls on the American government here and abroad will show you just how much people are not clinging to an angelic view of the U.S. government, but you think the world's engineers might be in denial about a 9/11 conspiracy any way? How does that add up? Most of the world's engineers don't even live here. And that's just engineers. Construction supervisors don't have much to say about it at the pool hall or anywhere else either. Practically all of them see it as a non-issue.

Fair enough, UM. I don't see how you can take the fact that you don't hear what the majority of construction/demolitions experts feel, through the media, as a step toward assuming what they do or don't talk about "at the pool hall," which is the kind of logic I'm rebutting, but that's cool. We have plenty of experts who have chimed in on 9/11, here in the states, but I have not looked into or heard any comments of either affirmation or dissent from outside of the U.S., so I can not even begin to assume what experts outside of the U.S. have to say about it. While you can take that absence of evidence of (international) conspiracy theory as evidence of absence of (international) conspiracy theory, I simply can't bring myself to take that leap of faith. It's nothing that I really feel I have the capacity/evidence to change your mind over (and vice-versa, I'm sure) so there is no reason to keep going on about it. But it's just that certain blanket statements, that I feel are not sufficient to discredit the theory, should be spoken out against, especially when used against the context of not necessarily promoting the theory, but considering the possibility of the theory. I'm simply trying to uphold the integrity of those who are willing to investigate the theory, intensely and meticulously. I don't feel that most of the dissent that I've heard, from anyone, has followed that standard.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Logic says that the idea that the world of engineers would be so quiet about something so enormous when they can easily understand whether structures could really fall and melt the way they reportedly did is an idea that is profoundly far fetched, like the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To clarify: Your logic says that. My logic states that there is a lot more that goes into not only how people react to any given phenomena, but also into what information that we are fed through mainstream media. I cannot even begin to pretend I know what the "world demolition/construction" community have to say about 9/11, and I cannot bring myself to pretend that the absence of their chatter means one thing or the other. I guess that's just how I operate.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But this is just one small part of my disagreement with the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis. We have not even begun to get into issues of faked hijackings, how the planes were flown, why and how so many people got involved yet never leaked their roles, or the other issues. If you are one of the people who think the Pentagon was hit by an unreported missile, then we really have an interesting issue to get into.

I choose not to get involved with many of the "exactly what happened" theories, until I get enough evidence to raise a competent argument. I've seen a lot of things that imply it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, but I acknowledge that a lot of what I see may be misinformation. I've also seen a lot that suggest that it was the hijacked 727, as stated, but I also acknowledge that a lot of what I see may be misinformation. As of yet, the scales are tipped to the official story of the 727, but I do leave some room for doubt (and not just the "cover-your-ass" variable of 0.000000001%. I mean actual, open-minded doubt).

So you aren't ready to get into how in the world the 9/11 conspiracy could have possibly happened, and I'm glad you admit that. I think it would be impossible to give a story that is even plausible. So I will say one more thing about the lack of expert chatter, which I have illustrated in many forms. I am not talking about a mere majority of people who are silent. I am talking about virtual unanymity. A lot of people here have tried to construe my argument to mean that if 55% say something happened and 45% say it didn't, the 55% is automatically right. That is not at all what I am saying. If I thought that way, I would be a Christian. I am talking about a situation where virtually no experts have anything to say about a finding that would become the biggest news story in history. A finding that the WTC was bombed on 9/11 and that that is what caused the buildings to collapse would become a bigger news story now than the alleged attacks were on 9/11/01. It would be history's most shocking event. But Memeticverb and Mystic can notice that the report is a lie and that the buildings collapsed because they were bombed based on a few short premises while virtually no engineers or construction supervisors chatter about it? That is what I think is preposterous.

But then there is the idea that some really, really complicated matters actually do suggest that the buildings were bombed and those matters cannot be illustrated by short premises amateurs on the internet understand. In such a case, the vast majority of experts might not be in a position to notice the evidence. The vast majority of the amateurs on the internet sure as Hell would not be able to notice it. That is something I do not completely rule out. It is very doubtful, but not impossible. Sometimes rare experts do notice things that the masses of experts do not notice. But that is not what we have been talking about in this forum. I have been responding to amateurs here who call me crazy for not noticing the supposedly simple. If it were so simple, the experts would be making deafening chatter instead of a deafening silence. That is what I am saying.

er Loose chaange fanil cuat. Means nuathing to may! blaaa.

Highly Credible Experts and Leaders Question Official 9/11 Story

The Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11


Why don't people ever address the fact that Bush's uncle's bank was of found guilty of laundering money to the 9/11 terrorists?

Why don't they ask why the Bush administration has used unprecedented executive privilege to stop further investigation of his uncle's wrongdoings?