Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[thesyntaxera]

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentle

When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...

Is it logical to believe the following:

two planes flying at 600 miles per hour being piloted by two certified cesna trainee's hit the trade center and pentagon.

the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete). The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders.

Of the WTC planes, both managed to cause fires that would ultimately bring the buildings down. The second tower to get hit was the first to go. Even though an incredibly hot fire from burning jet fuel is what brought the building down some how people were photopgraphed standing in the holes where the the very planes struck.

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees...it takes a prolonged heat of over 2200 degree's to weaken it enough to fall.

Buidling 7 was also destroyed by fire although initial reports indicated that it was small and containable. When it collapsed it fell in all at once, resembling a demolition even though it wasn't one.

If you dropped a rock from the roof of tower 2 at the moment it starts to fall the tower would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. If the towers were not demolished,

The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive.

We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away.

None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

All Federal protocols for dealing with highjackings were not followed until after the attacks took place, no one noticed anything was wrong despite the tight regulation of air traffic by civilians and NORAD. Washington airsapce was not being protected at the time even though Andrews air base is right next door.

No chemical test of the building steel was conducted before the metal was exported to a smelter. This decision is made after fires and explosions are reported and witnessed in the lobby of the building.

Molten steel was uncovered in the core of the site two months after the collapse. Siesmic records indicate demolition charges at the precise time of the impacts.

The flight that crashed in pennsylvania left no wreckage at all, and a 20 foot wide crater. No bodies...no engines...nothing...this was after it flew to ohio and turned around without being noticed.


want more?

I have my flame retardant suit on....

 

[Year Zero]

I can't even begin to point out the numerous simple factual errors in this statement, but I don't blame you because I know how conspiracy theories spread. Statements are delivered with such confidence that the reader, unless he has taken special time out to verify the simple details, usually assumes to be true. Let's face it, if someone asked anyone on this forum, in person, to give a relatively detailed chronology of the events on 9-11 we would probably fail miserably. So when someone puts out a claim like, "The whole in the Pentagon was 16 feet wide" one would not be able to refute it so easily without prior research.

I have recently read over this site, and have found refutations to all of these claims, with sources cited(often the debunking can be done with the source cited by the conspiracy theorists.

www.911myths.com

Please excuse me for not personally tackling these claims, but I have literally spent months debating all of these claims WITHOUT the aid of that site, I am a bit weary of this topic. I have actually been called an agent of Larry Silverstein by proponents of the WTC 7 conspiracy claim.

 

[MRC_Hans]

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentle

No.

When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.

I bet they are.

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...

Ignores fundamental debunking delivered, and claims it is non-existent. Claims t osupply info and supplies idiot propaganda? Devil's advocate, my foot. My kook alarm is on bright crimson.

Is it logical to believe the following:

two planes flying at 600 miles per hour being piloted by two certified cesna trainee's hit the trade center and pentagon.

Three planes. Yes, flying is largely scalable, and these guys neither needed to take off or land. And they had had simulator training on the proper plane type.

the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete).

Which 180 degree turn? That was miles before impact, and the plane did hit the ground before hitting the building. That is the reason for the three holes; the plane was partly disintegrated when it hit the building.

The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders.

That's simply nonsense.

Of the WTC planes, both managed to cause fires that would ultimately bring the buildings down. The second tower to get hit was the first to go.

Could that be because more than twice as much building had to be supported, above the impact site ?

Even though an incredibly hot fire from burning jet fuel is what brought the building down some how people were photopgraphed standing in the holes where the the very planes struck.

I dare you to prodice such photos, but it is indeed possible. After the initial blast, the holes made by the planes will act like access holes for fresh, cool air, while the hot fire goes upwards. Notice that those holes appeared dark, after the initial fireball. Ever been at a fire site? Even deep into the buring area, there are fresh-air corridors. I have seen packages wrapped in paper being quite undamaged right next to molten glass, on a fire site.

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees...it takes a prolonged heat of over 2200 degree's to weaken it enough to fall.

The temperature of a fire depends on the availability of air and fuel. You cannot state a specific temperature for a given fuel. Charcoall will normally burn at arounf 900 degrees (e.g. in your barbecue), but blow sufficient air on it and it can melt steel.

Buidling 7 was also destroyed by fire although initial reports indicated that it was small and containable. When it collapsed it fell in all at once, resembling a demolition even though it wasn't one.

Building 7 was weakend by fire and the towers crashing down right beside it. Initial reports? Excuse me, are you saying that initial reports MUST be right, but the whole situation was a sham?? Do make up your mind. A building collapses from the point where it fails. If that point is near the ground (where the load on any buildng's structure is greatest), it will collapse like that.

If you dropped a rock from the roof of tower 2 at the moment it starts to fall the tower would hit the ground at the same time as the rock.

Newsflash: All objects fall at the same speed (barring air resistance), buildings, stones, etc.

If the towers were not demolished,

What?

The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive.

Source? Again, part of the report must be accepted, although it was really all a sham? Get your referencs straight.

We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away.

Nonsense.

None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

False.

All Federal protocols for dealing with highjackings were not followed until after the attacks took place, no one noticed anything was wrong despite the tight regulation of air traffic by civilians and NORAD. Washington airsapce was not being protected at the time even though Andrews air base is right next door.

And (if correct) that is evidence of what? That such attacks were not expected? Duh!

No chemical test of the building steel was conducted before the metal was exported to a smelter. This decision is made after fires and explosions are reported and witnessed in the lobby of the building.

False. Extensive analysis of the wreckage was performed.

Molten steel was uncovered in the core of the site two months after the collapse.

And (if correct) this is evidence of what? That the building did not collapse due to the steel melting?

Siesmic records indicate demolition charges at the precise time of the impacts.

Ehr, but the buildings did not collapse at the time of the impacts, remember? How do you distinguish between the impact of a plane and a demolition charge, in a seismic record? How did they know where the impacts were going to be so they could place the charges there?

The flight that crashed in pennsylvania left no wreckage at all, and a 20 foot wide crater. No bodies...no engines...nothing...this was after it flew to ohio and turned around without being noticed.

False. This is plain silly. We have all seen videos of the wreckage field. And yes, it was noticed. Remember, fighters were scrabled, and another conspiracy theory even claims that it was shot down by those fighters.

want more?

I have my flame retardant suit on....

No thanks, unless you can do considerably better.

And that suit seems to be logic retardant, too. Perhaps you should simply take it off .

Hans

 

[Year Zero]

Within a few floors, yes. So how was it foreseen, within a few floors, where the planes would hit (or, for that matter, that they would hit at all)?

The combination of planes and demolition charges simply don't add up. It is not made any better by the fact that a few years before, a whole truckload of explosives were detonated in the basement under one of the towers, without seriously endangering the building, so we know that any effective demolition attempt would involve hundreds of pounds of carefully placed explosives. Not something you can easily get away with doing secretly in a busy office building.

Hans

Exactly. If you read about real demolitions experts, they will tell you that there is no exact science to demolitions, only experience and educated guesses. Because of this it can take literally months to rig even a much smaller building for demolitions; and that's a building that has been prepped for destruction. This means tearing out walls, drilling holes, etc.

And the Conspiracy folks hang themselves by saying it looks like a controlled demolitions because even if you could rig that thing with absolutely nobody noticing; once you crash a plane into the building you've thrown the element of control out the window. Which begs the question, "why use planes at all"? It would have been far easier and less risky to simply fake a truck bomb and perhaps leave the towers, and not attack the Pentagon. Hell, it would have been 10 times safer than that to simply fake the thwarting of an impending attack...

But no, in conspiracy world they would have us believe that the super-geniuses that control the world are also so stupid that their schemes are unravelled sometimes even days(London Bombings) after the events by internet junkies who didn't even need to leave their house.

Thanks for your support in this issue. After being accused of being a paid-agent of Larry Silverstein, head 9-11 conspirator, I am glad to sit back and watch someone else take a few shots at CTs.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

 

[Year Zero]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

Speaking as someone who has literally spent months debating these conspiracies, your presentation is woefully out of date. Some of the major CTs are currently claiming that the no-plane Pentagon theory was actually circulated by the conspirators as disinformation. That's the luxury CTs have when their theory gets debunked so quickly.

Other than that the other claims lack detail and sources, yet I am familiar with various incarnations of all of them. More importantly, I am familiar with the refutations and various logical flaws many of them put forth. Once again, visit 911myths.com and you will find sources and discussions far more detailed than I could ever provide in one sitting.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I would also like to point out that I listed those claims because no one else had bothered to...as if you had meticulously researched it all yourself and determined them to be false...

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

I was wondering what specific facts there were to debunk these claims because it could just be that I am trying to explain it to someone else to keep them from getting lost down the rabbit hole.

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?


that, and your Ad Hominems are annoying....

 

[thesyntaxera]

Speaking as someone who has literally spent months debating these conspiracies, your presentation is woefully out of date. Some of the major CTs are currently claiming that the no-plane Pentagon theory was actually circulated by the conspirators as disinformation. That's the luxury CTs have when their theory gets debunked so quickly.

Other than that the other claims lack detail and sources, yet I am familiar with various incarnations of all of them. More importantly, I am familiar with the refutations and various logical flaws many of them put forth. Once again, visit 911myths.com and you will find sources and discussions far more detailed than I could ever provide in one sitting.

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

the official story seems less than logical, not to say that rampant conspiranoia isn't as well.

I will be sure to check 911 myths


go to google and look up informationclearinghouse.info . Peruse the video archive on the left. watch loose change. it's short. answer the claims and argue the sources...but don't come at me like it's your mission to stomp me out just because I brought up 911.

I would post a link to the video directly, but I can't yet obviously.

 

[Year Zero]

I would also like to point out that I listed those claims because no one else had bothered to...as if you had meticulously researched it all yourself and determined them to be false...

Actually yes I have researched these claims and I have had them rapidly thrown at me by multiple people on a discussion forum on several occasions, sometimes single threads lasted over a week. The poor bastards never seemed to notice that many of their theories or "proofs" actually contradicted each other.

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

No I never said all conspiracies are bunk. A skeptic believes what there is evidence for. I have not seen any convincing evidence of any of these conspiracies. What I have seen is blatant errors, massive leaps of faith, and seemingly deliberate attempts to mislead people on simple facts surrounding the event.

I was wondering what specific facts there were to debunk these claims because it could just be that I am trying to explain it to someone else to keep them from getting lost down the rabbit hole.

Go to the 911myths.com site then. All the claims are catagorized by topic.

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?

I'll tell you what is revealing. The fact that you claim these theories haven't been debunked while repeatedly refusing to visit a site that claims to do just that. More importantly, many of these claims were also addressed in a now famous study published by Popular Mechanics, that boasts more credentials than the conspiracy theorists could dream about. You have also been responded to in some detail by another poster here- and yet you dismiss all this as "one or two sentences of drivel". And you claim to be a skeptic?

that, and your Ad Hominems are annoying....

What is also annoying is someone pretending to be objective, and then refusing to look at the sources someone cites. Not only have your claims been debunked, but some of those claims ARE NOT EVEN BELIEVED by some of the more popular conspiracy theorists- namely the Pentagon no-plane theory.

Just for fun, I am going to provide a few sample answers to the easiest of your questions:


"1. We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away."

This was not the method that was used to determine the complicity of Al Qaeda, which was known at the time to be a decentralized organization. Also, while I cannot say for sure, I don't believe that the passport belonged to Atta, but possibly another hijacker. Lastly, and most importantly...NASA actually recovered a patch, among several other items from the COLOMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER. It is in rather good shape despite the fact that it exploded out of a space shuttle 40 miles above the Earth. See 911myths.com for other items that miraciously survived 9-11.

2. "The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive."

No, "they" are not alive. Many Arabs have similar names, and in several cases confusion led to people who were still alive being listed as terrorists who were already dead.

3. " the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete). The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders."

This is simply flat-out wrong. The plane actually bounced off the ground once, and several lightpoles were knocked down by the plane, which is visible in several photographs. The holes were larger than 16 feet. Plane debris was found all over the area and the flight recorders were recovered.

4. None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

This is just flat out wrong. I think you are confusing flight manifest with the final victims report. There is good reason for this: That report was compiled using only victims who had enough remains to be identified, identity was verified by personal effects and other samples sent in by family members. Guess who were on those planes that DIDN'T have families sending in samples....TIME'S UP!!! THE HIJACKERS! Also, the hijackers actually aren't the only people that didn't appear on the victim recovery lists either- it was compiled only of those remains that could be identified.


If you want to examine these further simply go to 911Myths.com But don't continue to say "they haven't been debunked" if you are not going to admit your obvious factual errors and not examine evidence to the contrary.

 

[Year Zero]

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

You have been researching this for 4 years yet you made clear simple factual errors in these claims? How could you research objectively for 4 years and never find out that the claims about the Pentagon, for example, were quickly debunked? You really need to visit that site.

the official story seems less than logical, not to say that rampant conspiranoia isn't as well.
.

The "official story" whatever that is, seems a lot more logical when the claims are accurately represented and the basic facts of that day are not distorted. Conspiracy theorists, often with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, like to refer to expert investigators as "so-called", and then proceed to point out the "holes" they see in the "official story"(which they often misstate). What I have also seen from these people, is that they do not like the same scrutiny applied to their theory. The "official story" people are expected to explain every last detail, while people that believe in the demolition are never forced to explain how the rigging of charges in the WTC was even possible without massive eyewitnesses, and why they would be so stupid as to crash planes into the building, thus invalidating all their calculations.

 

[Panelman]

As for the wing under the blue plastic if you see anything else besides a tube and plastic building we are not looking at the same picture. All they are doing is moving a lightweight, temp. plastic building, just like the one i just put up in my backyard. Check out the ribs on the roof line.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. Please enlighten me.

 

[kookbreaker]

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

I find it amusing how someone can claim to have 'researched' a topic for four years, yet still make the unsupported claim that there was molten steel in the basement.

You realise there is very little evidence for this claim, right? Its fairly indicitive of your errors.

Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?

"Research" does not mean just going to CT sites and drooling over what they call "research".

 

[kookbreaker]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

You claim you want to 'play nice' and then use terms like 'blind reactionism'.



Wonderful.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

I don't believe that anyone that has truly looked into this matter could have written such a woefully factually inaccurate post, thesyntaxera. You make several outlandish claims that have no basis in reality along with several badly outdated claims that can be taken apart in seconds with the aide of google or snopes.com.

If you're really into this conspiracy stuff, you have a lot to look forward to because it looks like you've just begun to scratch the surface of the mainstream e-mail circulated paranoia that was circulating circa 2003.

--- G.

 

[kookbreaker]

"1. We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away."

This was not the method that was used to determine the complicity of Al Qaeda, which was known at the time to be a decentralized organization. Also, while I cannot say for sure, I don't believe that the passport belonged to Atta, but possibly another hijacker. Lastly, and most importantly...NASA actually recovered a patch, among several other items from the COLOMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER. It is in rather good shape despite the fact that it exploded out of a space shuttle 40 miles above the Earth. See 911myths.com for other items that miraciously survived 9-11.

An example I like to point out: FOUND magazine, (a magazine devoted to people sending in the odd loves notes, poems, ramblings, scribblings, and whatnot found on subways and other odd places) managed to collect pieces of paper with letterhead (with a 9/11/01 date) from a law firm that was completely and utterly destroyed by the attack. Their rooms were destroyed, and every.single person who worked for that firm was killed in the crash and fire. Yet these bare pieces of paper managed to survive the disaster.

By comparison, a Passport is thick paper, and strongly laminated. It was on a person who had momentum going into the tower, thus would be more likely to be thrown free from the tower. Certainly more likely than some legal note on a lawyer's desk.

Yet CT's act constantly 'stunned' as to how such a thing could survive.

 

[thesyntaxera]

first off, and let this be plain...I never said I wouldn't look at your sources...in fact I said I would look at them...read closer.

second, I am aware of the proper role of a skeptical mind. I know the typical conspiracy hierarchy, and have not come to spew diatribe about circumstantial evidence, so please...in all kindness, direct your accusatory tone, and lectures elsewhere.

third, your responding to this as if I am trying to convince you, which I am not.

now let me be the first to break your logic bubble.

After reviewing the information on your one source, 911myths.com, I have to say that it is just as poor of an excuse of information as every conspiracy hacks. They use your favorite method of reading posts to come to conclusions but of a different sort....you know, ones contrary to the conspiracy claims.

Each point they make, which barely covers all of the points brought up by the 9/11isahoax community, is only backed up by more inductivist rhetoric. All they are doing is demonstrating that you can interpret the information in different ways.

There are some that contradict themselves...for instance the claim that there was molten steel...they assert that we couldn't know either way, then show a picture of molten metal that "could" be steel...but then say since it isn't verified...how can we know? The contradiction enters in, when they stand by the finding that the very cause of the collapse was do to the damage and melting of the 40 odd steel beams that were holding it up.

Asif Usamani points out-
"So the results of the analyses and the fact that the structure had sustained significant damage lead to a very strong case that the impact damage coupled with the subsequent fires were the only causes of collapse that rational minded people should need consider. The vertically downward collapse (which looks like a controlled demolition) is simply because once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force. The forces generated by a large moving mass are orders of magnitude larger than its weight (called dynamic amplification in engineering). Professor Bazant of Northwestern University (Illionois) explained this well in his paper soon after 9/11."

So I guess he forgot to take into consideration the fact that there were 80 undamaged floors of the building with an ever widening support structure as it approached the base? Wouldn't that be a sizable enough mass to change the direction of the moving mass of the upper floors? Why would the base of the building be weaker than the upper floors?

He further writes-
"Behaviour of structures in general and structures in fire in particular is a complex and very specialist engineering mechanics field that requires years study and research to understand well. It is unlikely that any of the conspiracy theories emanate from people who understand these issues."

Thats very nice of him to point out..."believe me, you couldn't possibly grasp this unless you are trained..." if you were to analyze the video evidence compared to other demolitions you would see many striking similarities, and since this guy isn't the only expert to think on this topic I would like to point out that there are other people who might argue with him on this, although 911myths.com didn't bother to seek them out.

I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either...


I could go on, this is just a small sample of the logical errors I noticed when reading the one site that convinced you of the official story.

As far as your answers to my posted point, you dodge all of them with semantics...like comparing the burning of charcoal in a grill to the heat of buring jet fuel...nonsense...

you might also want to check your facts before you use answers like NO. A lot of the things I mentioned were components of the official story, like the whole passport thing. You actually believe that a paper passport that is claimed to be launched from a plane that landed inside a building that burned so much as to fall down into a million pieces is logical because some website compared it to the columbia explosion...something that is much smaller...
I'm sure you can find all kinds of burned things there...just not a passport that sailed through a building that exploded on impact...typically you would think it would be incinerated wouldn't you? This is induction at it's finest.

I am not trying to dance you in circles here, honestly, I am trying to get you to be as critical as your 6,000+ posts would lead me to believe.

Here is my problem, your whole argument is based around the assumption that I don't know what I am talking about, that whatever they settled on must be the most logical explanation, and that since some website can inductively solve all of the problems with reconciling the video evidence with the official report, it must be true...even though there are many ways of looking at this as well as the evidence that you ignore because you have predetermined that this case is for the most part closed.

I realize that this event fits the conspiracy hierarchy all too well, I just feel after reviewing the evidence that is available...(ie multiple video angles as well as the complete dispatch tape, hundreds of still images, and loads of eyewitness testimony, not to mention the final commision report) unconvinced of the legitimacy of the final report.

Why can't you admit in this situation the most logical answer might be that there might be cause for further investigation by an independant third party if for no other purpose than to settle this sore spot. 50% of surveyed NY'ers don't buy the official report...

neither do many of the firemen who were in the building.

how many bells and whistles need to go off?




I will now take the time to answer the few posts that snuck in while I was typing...

THS-
can't think of any off the top of your head?

iran/contra, blood diamonds, the plot to kill caesar, mccarthyism...read "the people history of the united states by howard zinn, there is over 1000 pages of researched conspiracy in some form or another in there as well...

It should also be pointed out that if one were to buy the whole story of 911 as it is told, then you would be buying into a different conspiracy...the one where a couple of guys in the mountains of afghanistan conspired to bomb the WTC and pentagon with the help of 19 other people...something that would take years to do, and yet, in Osama's confession he clearly states the highjackers didn't know what they would be doing until the day of the attack.

kookbreaker-
was it something other than blind reactionism? do tell. I am sure there were papers flying all about as they were on the live video, the reason the claim is questionable is because were talking about a thick piece of paper at the exact location of the explosion leaping out of the plane, out of the building, and then landing several blocks away...this is no cause for concern from you?

"Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?"

Have you asked them? What did they say? I guess an amatuer pilot could bring a 757 to feet off the ground without blowing over everything in it's path?
Is that what you are saying? Or are you making the guess that they would say such things?


See I thought I would come here and find some people who actually had something to debunk the conspiracy theory with besides someone else inductive approach to reasoning. What I am beginning to notice is that of the people who have so far replied, none of you is capable of offering a more logical explanation. If you could you would have. Instead, you hide behind semantics, ad hominem, poor reasoning, and a single website that suffers from the same thing.

As far as being out of touch with current trends in CT...doubtfull...but I'll let you keep your assumption and ego intact since there is no way to prove you wrong.

 

[thesyntaxera]

in regards to the photo of people standing in the hole of tower two after the impact...it does exist, and I will post it. It will take sometime to locate online if I don't already have it saved on a disk some where...

 

[thesyntaxera]

I guess it wasn't that hard...all it took was a google image search

it will not allow me to upload it because of it's size...


911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg

just paste into your browser since I can't post an actual link yet.. and behold a raging inferno, and a woman standing in the hole.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

That picture proves nothing, for reasons already explained above. I don't think you are grasping the complexity of the events in question, the numbers of variables and the fact that it takes even structural engineers quite a bit of calculations to come to any kind of explanation.

Looking at a picture and saying: "It doesn't make sense!" doesn't make it so. Just because a movie audience would reject it as implausible doesn't mean it wouldn't be exactly what would happen in the real world. I mean there are often reports of explosions where people are found relatively unharmed in a nearby tree while their apartment is completely shredded by a gas leak.

--- G.