Was 9/11 A Hoax?

[SirPhilip]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5)

Any thoughts?

[brodski]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5)

Any thoughts?

thoghts? a whole 17 pages of them!

[slingblade]

Hoax: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.

Nope. It wasn't a hoax.

[brodski]

Seriously, read through their "evidence", even if you take it all at face value, is it more probable that the US Govt made some mistakes, or that the US Govt murdered thousands of its own citizens?

Basically all they have are a few inconsistant statements and a lot of hand waving.

(I'd be more suspicious if everything was full accounted for, because reality doesn't work like that, people misspeak, they misremember, and are sometimes ill informed or confused- even in govt),
Its a classic PCT.

and dead wrong.

[boooeee]

From the link:
(PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article?

Once again, from the link:

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
James Fetzer
218 724-2706

This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).

[epepke]

The twin towers never were there, Winston. And we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[LostAngeles]

From the link:

Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article?

Once again, from the link:



This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).

Look at part of the link "bs_prweb"

That gives one major clue and one observation.

[LostAngeles]

But more specfically:

*In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

It is my understanding that the intense heat of the fires weakend the steel supporting the upper floors which caused the collapse of the buildings. As far as history goes, it can be a good predictor but under unusal and extreme circumstances... first time for everything, as they say.

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Are they certain its the exact same people or are they people with similar names? Could the BBC have made a mistake? When did they make this report?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

I heard that too and at the time I believe it was the Boeing 707 that was the standard. A modern 737 is much, much smaller than a 767, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the model flown into the WTC. Also, see answers about the fire.

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

The fire was fed by the carpeting and furniture in the offices. Also, as I've said, I understood it to be simply that the steel was weakend enough that it could not suport the above floors.

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

That depends on when it disappeared. They lost contact with all of the flights at some point during the attacks, didn't they?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

They also weren't smart enough to realize how lousy Logan security is to have only taken two planes. Snark aside, the Pentagon wasn't their orginal target, The White House or the Capitol building was, but they couldn't spot them as easily.

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

How is it that it could not have been to shoot it down? Was Cheney possibly asking if the orders to shoot planes down still stood in the event of other attacks? Was he asking why that plane had not been shot down yet?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

Not sure. Possibly at what angle the plane came in, if it hit anything else coming in, or even speed?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

With a sledgehammer. I think what they're looking for is "Why?" and I have to ask, "Evidence? of this event?"

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Uh, remember her answer about the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing to the Commission? Yeah. They don't answer questions too goodly sometimes in this adminstration.

(Anything I've erred on or am off base on, please correct. Most of this was done from what I remembered)

[NeilC]

To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"?

Lots of things I don't know much about strike me as odd - until I work them out and then they make sense.

What I would find very, very odd would be a president ordering the public slaughter of 3000 of his countrymen and then managing to cover it all up.

As for that article. It's presented as a news story but it's just the same old stuff rehashed.

You say it's not a bunch of conspiracy theorists but that is not correct. Fetzer is a well known conspiracy theorist, and not just on 9/11. Read this:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When federal investigators released a report last month about the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, some members of Congress hoped it would dispel talk that his plane was sabotaged.

It didn't.

In Internet chat groups, political Web sites and the published reports of several leftist academics, conspiracy theories about Wellstone's death last October maintain a life of their own, particularly in northern Minnesota.

In one nasty exchange, a retired prosecutor from Duluth has threatened to take legal action against a University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor who espouses the belief that the Bush White House had a hand in Wellstone's demise.

The former prosecutor, Thomas Bieter, alleges that the professor, Kennedy-assassination theorist JAMES FETZER, has committed "criminal defamation" by publishing articles suggesting a government coverup of the crash investigation. "

Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.

[MRC_Hans]

9/11 a hoax?
Let's see:

Evil gov't representative (EGR) #1: We need to have an excuse to spend a gazillion dollars and a few thousand soldier's lives on an invasion in some country, preferably on the far side of the planet. Any ideas?

EGR #2: Uhhm, why?

EGR #1: To keep the weapons industry going and to keep the public attention away from domestic problems, dummy!

EGR #2: But, wouldn't it be cheaper just to give some of the money to the weapons industry and use some for tax cuts? That should....

EGR #3: Hey! Stop that! We simply don't do things that way, and think of the example it would set. Now, go stand in a corner till you understand how to run a government!

EGR #2: [Shuffles over to corner and stands, sulking]

EGR #3: Good! Now, I second the motion. Any ideas?

EGR #4: I have an idea.

EGR #1: Let's hear it.

EGR #4: It seems that in Afganistan, there is some terrorist organisation that has made a couple of nasty things in the past. If we could make them make an attack on American ground, why, we could invade all of Afganistan, and nobody would protest.

EGR #3: Sounds good, but.. where is this Afmanisan?

EGR #4: Afganistan. Desert and mountaneous country the size of Texas, just west of Pakistan. Low organisation level, all Moslem ragheads.

EGR #2 (from corner): Didn't the Russians take a good beating there, a few years ago?

EGR #1: You are not permitted to speak, while in the corner!

EGR #3: Doesn't matter, the russies are grossly incompetent in guerilla warfare. But how do we get those terrorists to make an attack? Can they be bought?

EGR #4: Mmmm, that could be a problem. I think they are supported from Saudi Arabia, so they are already full of money.

EGR #2 (from corner): Could't we just fake it?

EGR #1: Now you are talking! You can return to the table.

EGR #4: Good idea! We'll place exlosives in some large buildings and blow them up.

EGR #3: Cool! But how do we make it look like the Afsancons did it?

EGR #4: Afganistans.. ehh Afgani, I think it is .. Never mind.

EGR #2: Mmmm, we'll have to fake a plane hijacking, no several, and ... fly the planes into the buildings, just as we blow them up!

EGR #1: How do we get anybody to do that?

EGR #3: We'll pay some guys with Amsani names to hijack planes, then remote control them to fly into the buildings.

EGR #4: Afgani. Great, and if we agree to pay them afterwards, we can save some money! And we're sure they don't sing.

EGR #1: What if one of the planes don't make it to the building?

EGR #2: We just blow it up anyway and call it collateral damage.

EGR #4: Or, we save the charges for a later opportunity.

EGR #1: OK! Let's us get into details. Buildings, logistics, timing.

.......

I think this is a very probable scenario :rolleyes:

Hans

[Nick Bogaerts]

Then there's the Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html) article which at least one person hasn't read.

[MRC_Hans]

Then there's the Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html) article which at least one person hasn't read.Cool! Bookmarked :D !

Hans

[LostAngeles]

Then there's the Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html) article which at least one person hasn't read.

Score! One-stop debunk for the lazy!

I mean...

No, I do mean the lazy. Sorry. :boxedin:

[Johnny Pixels]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours...

Any thoughts?

1) It wasn't fire alone, there were two aeroplanes that hit them if you remember.

2) A fire fuelled by something like jet fuel burns hotter and faster than a fire fuelled by something like carpets and wood.

Try comparing it to the other times that skyscrapers have been hit by jet planes rather than just having fires in them.
Like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/260000/images/_263813_block.jpg

When an aeroplane hit an apartment block in Amsterdam. Imagine if there were floors above the impact point, what would be holding them up now?

And remember, this is a concrete building, and concrete is fire proof. The WTC was a steel framed building.

[TriangleMan]

This would be a good time to point SirPhilip to the ApolloHoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories) board. Despite the board's focus on the Apollo Hoax the engineers who hang out there have been pretty busy debunking 9/11 conspiracies, including a general 9/11 thread that is 85 pages long as well as a 10 page WTC7 thread. Chances are any 9/11 hoax "evidence" has already been debunked there.

[corplinx]

Was 9/11 A Hoax?


No. End of discussion.

[Mark]

No. End of discussion.

Too bad you have me on ignore, because you would be able to read that I agree with you 100%. ;)

[bob_kark]

Thank you kindly conspiracy nut and of course Nick! Without your help, I wouldn't have this nice Popular Mechanics article to read.

[NoZed Avenger]

Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either[.]

Their theory is that 9/11 was caused by a govenrment consipracy, as far as I can tell.

Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists?

[Dr Adequate]

SkepticWiki on 9/11 (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup)

[Cylinder]

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

UL certifies molten steel as support members in occupied structures? Wow. I did not know that.

What these "distinguished experts" miss is what any blacksmith can tell you. Somewhere quite short of its liquid phase, there exists a happy point (for the blacksmith at least) at which steel becomes more easily malleable while retaining the ability to hold its own shape.

[LostAngeles]

Also, it occurred to me last night about the guy who says debris from Flight 93 should have only covered a city block...

Are we certain he knows his sh*t?

[rikzilla]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5)

Any thoughts?

Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist.

Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there!

-z

[SirPhilip]

To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"? Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

[Mycroft]

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...


The buildings were not in power such that they must be held in a high degree of scrutiny.

[Ed]

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.



Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

[Cleon]

Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist.

Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there!


And you can bet a sizeable chunk of change that they use phrases like "True Skeptics" to describe themselves, and "pseudo-skeptics" to describe people who don't fall for their crap.

[Cleon]

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.
You'd think that, out of everybody in the WTC, at least one person would notice the guys carefully planting explosives at various places. And maybe, I dunno, say something about it?

"Hey, Bob, what's that guy doing with those explosives?"

[SirPhilip]

Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists? The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

[Anti_Hypeman]

The connection between Saddam and 9/11 was a hoax.

[DavidJames]

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.wow, you voted for Bush? With supporters like you :D

I voted against him twice, but "hardly a stretch"? sorry, I find it absolutely inconceivable. Follow the evidence, my friend, it will serve you well.

[Ranb]

James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org .

Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all.


Ranb

[Cleon]

James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org (http://www.clavius.org) .

Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all.



I'm usually suspicious of any group that has "Truth" (with a capital "T") right in the name. That's usually a pretty good indication they're full of it.

Combine a group calling for The Truth(tm), with some known nutters, spouting something widely regarded as conspiracy theory BS, and you wind up with...Yet Another Conspiracy Group. Yay!

[Ed]

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation?

And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it?

You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence.

BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

[SirPhilip]

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.Sure; a controlled demolition (http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/common/phil.mov) also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html), not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either.

Your turn.

[Ed]

Sure; a controlled demolition (http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/common/phil.mov) also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html), not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either.

Your turn.

You know what key charges would be required? Did you see the prep of the buildings? How? Who? Why? How was it covered up?

[Dr Adequate]

BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached? Monica Lewinsky didn't know when to keep her mouth shut.

[SirPhilip]

You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation?And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it? You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence.
BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?Point out what was declarative except "mounting distrust" and "major sentiment", both quite true.

[Regnad Kcin]

And let's not forget the paranormal, hat-shaped object!!!

(!)

[Ladewig]

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans.


Hardly a stretch?! WTF?! If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder? Please! If you're going to spin a story aboout conspiracies, at least make it believable.

Besides, if the powers that be were behind all this stuff, why did the president go into hiding by flying all over the midwest instead of returning directly to Washington. The puppet-masters could have raised Bush's popularity even more if they flew him directly to NYC or D.C. and let him give a speech with the smoking ruins in the background.

[Manny]

Hardly a stretch?! WTF?! If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder? Please! If you're going to spin a story aboout conspiracies, at least make it believable.

Besides, if the powers that be were behind all this stuff, why did the president go into hiding by flying all over the midwest instead of returning directly to Washington. The puppet-masters could have raised Bush's popularity even more if they flew him directly to NYC or D.C. and let him give a speech with the smoking ruins in the background.
But don't you see? All of the painfully obvious holes in the conspiracy are themselves part of the conspiracy, to throw us off!

[Ed]

Who? Why? How? How was it kept secret?

[SirPhilip]

You know what key charges would be required? Did you see the prep of the buildings? How? Who? Why? How was it covered up?I don't see how it isn't a reasonable assumption to say "key failure points inside the building could have been weakened or blown out completely" at a certain point in time. I'm not attempting to argue it was a controlled demolition, but you seem utterly convinced it is impossible - perhaps you should e-mail the news agencies spreading this around then? I don't think it was a controlled demolition as it makes little sense motive/risk wise except to ensure complete destruction. I just don't see this administration as particularly ethical, and it's actions should be investigated.

[Manny]

perhaps you should e-mail the news agencies spreading this around then? There are no news agencies spreading this around that I'm aware of.

[SirPhilip]

And let's not forget the paranormal, hat-shaped object!!!(!)...that etched the face of satan into the smoke with that gravity beam contraption.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't see how it isn't a reasonable assumption to say "key failure points inside the building could have been weakened or blown out completely" at a certain point in time. I'm not attempting to argue it was a controlled demolition, but you seem utterly convinced it is impossible - perhaps you should e-mail the news agencies spreading this around then? I don't think it was a controlled demolition as it makes little sense motive/risk wise except to ensure complete destruction. I just don't see this administration as particularly ethical, and it's actions should be investigated.

And it could have been brought down by the Flying Spaghetti Monster waving his noodly appendage in anger.

Now if there was actually any more credible evidence for one theory than the other, we would have something worth talking about....

Of course the theory that DOES have evidence is the one that suggests the crashing of planes and subsequent fire might have been responsible for the collapse. Wonder why that is?

[SirPhilip]

Seriously, read through their "evidence", even if you take it all at face value, is it more probable that the US Govt made some mistakes, or that the US Govt murdered thousands of its own citizens?Brother Philip just threw it up there because he was too lazy last night and couldn't be arsed to search to get the bottom line (s) about the article - being generally uninterested in 9/11 crap. The apparent weight of it and that I read it on a major news stream made it stick out from the rest, not to mention unnerve me a bit. Forgive me. :p

[SirPhilip]

And it could have been brought down by the Flying Spaghetti Monster waving his noodly appendage in anger....being ridden by David Icke, clad in turqoise battlearmor!

Now if there was actually any more credible evidence for one theory than the other, we would have something worth talking about. Of course the theory that DOES have evidence is the one that suggests the crashing of planes and subsequent fire might have been responsible for the collapse. Wonder why that is?Obviously that was the apparent cause, I just personally think that doesn't rule out the possibility that this administration would stoop to such tactics. As to a motive, defense industry spending? Conquest?

[Ladewig]

..
Obviously that was the apparent cause, I just personally think that doesn't rule out the possibility that this administration would stoop to such tactics. As to a motive, defense industry spending? Conquest?

But even if the hundreds of people necessary to pull off everything that happened on 9/11 were psychotic1 enough to decide that this motivation was worth killing thousands of innocent civilians, why use airplanes instead of simple bombs in the buildings? Having four U.S. passenger jets hijacked with nothing more than box cutters put a world of hurt on the domestic airline industry. Some are on the verge of going out of business. Why would they hurt U.S. industries as part of their plan?

1 - there is no other word for it given that these people could not tell their friends, families, and co-workers to avoid airline travel on that day and to avoid business in D.C. and NYC. They were prepared to let their loved ones die for this unspecified motive.

[Ladewig]

Let's talk logistics, SirPhilip. How many people do you think would be needed to pull off everything that happened on 9/11 if the conspiracists are right?

In your answer, please indicate whether or not you are assuming hidden radio-controlled airplane controls in the passenger jets or if some other method was used to fly the planes into the towers.

[Elind]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5)

Any thoughts?

Just a question. Why do you say "and they aren't conspiracy theorists either"?

Do you expect them to come out and say "by the way, we are not conspiracy theorists, so you must take us seriously"?

We've already exhausted all this in another thread here somewhere.

[SirPhilip]

Just a question. Why do you say "and they aren't conspiracy theorists either"?Because the integrity of this administration is on trial, and the American public are the jury. The approval rating of the president has been sinking lower and lower every month, and there is a reason for it. If it turns out there has been a great degree of corruption going on, the public will want to know how far that goes. As far as I can tell, It's a group of (academic and expert?) (well, minus that one guy) people who are proactive about it being investigated, it's asking the proper questions about abuses of power. That's my personal opinion because history proves this is necessary. As much as I find it unpalatable, if the president is giving off clues he's a sociopath, it is certainly possible Bush knew what happened beforehand.

Do you expect them to come out and say "by the way, we are not conspiracy theorists, so you must take us seriously"? We've already exhausted all this in another thread here somewhere.That explains the masked irritation.

[bigred]

In Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5)

Any thoughts?
I think you're right: they aren't conspiracy theorists.

I also think the Holocaust never happened and we didn't land on no moon!

It's clearly all to cover up the aliens housed in Area 51. Dude.

[Ladewig]

As much as I find it unpalatable, if the president is giving off clues he's a sociopath, it is certainly possible Bush knew what happened beforehand.



I didn't mean them to be rhetorical questions.

If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder?

[davefoc]

1) It wasn't fire alone, there were two aeroplanes that hit them if you remember.

2) A fire fuelled by something like jet fuel burns hotter and faster than a fire fuelled by something like carpets and wood.

Try comparing it to the other times that skyscrapers have been hit by jet planes rather than just having fires in them.
Like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/260000/images/_263813_block.jpg

When an aeroplane hit an apartment block in Amsterdam. Imagine if there were floors above the impact point, what would be holding them up now?

And remember, this is a concrete building, and concrete is fire proof. The WTC was a steel framed building.

I think, in fairness, Johnny Pixels, it is important to mention the other obvious possibility here. The same people who planted the charges in the Twin towers also planted them in the Amsterdam apartment building.

I think what probably happened was that the conspirators blew up the Amsterdam apartment building just after the jetliner crashed into it as both a practice exercise and a diversion to cover what was their real target, the twin towers in NY, which they successfully destroyed eight years later..

[SirPhilip]

I think you're right: they aren't conspiracy theorists.

I also think the Holocaust never happened and we didn't land on no moon!

It's clearly all to cover up the aliens housed in Area 51. Dude.
Evidence? :rolleyes:

[Elind]

Because the integrity of this administration is on trial, and the American public are the jury. The approval rating of the president has been sinking lower and lower every month, and there is a reason for it. If it turns out there has been a great degree of corruption going on, the public will want to know how far that goes. As far as I can tell, It's a group of (academic and expert?) (well, minus that one guy) people who are proactive about it being investigated, it's asking the proper questions about abuses of power. That's my personal opinion because history proves this is necessary. As much as I find it unpalatable, if the president is giving off clues he's a sociopath, it is certainly possible Bush knew what happened beforehand.

That explains the masked irritation.

It's not masked irritation, it's real irritation at this type of garbage you call logic.

You are the conspiracy theorist, and a pretty poor one at that. The sarcasm you read in this thread does a better job at it than you do.:mad:

[Kevin_Lowe]

SirPhilip: Suppose we assume for the sake of conspiracy theory goodness that the White House wanted 9/11 or something like it to take place.

Wouldn't it have been much easier for them to channel funds to Islamic extremist groups, and/or impede CIA/NSA investigations of said loonies, and just let nature take its course?

What do you think their incentive was to stage 9/11 themselves, even if they did want a 9/11-type-event as an excuse for later actions?

[Skeptic]

And let me get this straight: the government behind the incredibly and utterly perfectly executed conspiracy of 9/11 is the SAME government behind the $400 hammers, $2100 toilet seats, and the DMV, right?

[aerocontrols]

Do you expect them to come out and say "by the way, we are not conspiracy theorists, so you must take us seriously"?


Dear Mr. President,

There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.

P.S. I am not a crackpot.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5143/grandpa0bi.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[SirPhilip]

Let's talk logistics, SirPhilip. How many people do you think would be needed to pull off everything that happened on 9/11 if the conspiracists are right? In your answer, please indicate whether or not you are assuming hidden radio-controlled airplane controls in the passenger jets or if some other method was used to fly the planes into the towers. I'm sure there are compelling arguments against the idea anyone knew beforehand or were involved in it, I just don't think it is cut and dry like that and easy to rule out. Bush's spying program already fits into what is considered a "conspiracy theory". Let's just agree to disagree, this is politically charged, but apologies for starting another thread on this topic, though. I also apologise for carrying on a debate about this. You don't debate on assumptions, but the idea that the administration is corrupt is simply not far fetched anymore.

[Elind]

I also apologise for carrying on a debate about this.

The only reason I can think you would do that is:tr:

[SirPhilip]

It's not masked irritation, it's real irritation at this type of garbage you call logic.

Wow, you should inform congress and the American public about all these impossible situations.

You are the conspiracy theorist, and a pretty poor one at that. The sarcasm you read in this thread does a better job at it than you do.:mad:You have to admit, my theory about the Bush administration illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens was a lot better. Conspiracy theorists must be falling over themselves s-itting books out to keep up with the real dilemma too. If you came on here three months ago and started throwing out the idea there was a secret domestic spying program going on, it wouldn't hold up either. It's still a far cry from actual involvement or foreknowledge, but this is not a far out idea now, but putting it in the same catagory as tall tales is blockheaded and dishonest.

[Elind]

You have to admit, my theory about the Bush administration illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens was a lot better. Conspiracy theorists must be falling over themselves s-itting books out to keep up with the real dilemma too. If you came on here three months ago and started throwing out the idea there was a secret domestic spying program going on, it wouldn't hold up either. It's still a far cry from actual involvement or foreknowledge, but this is not a far out idea now, but putting it in the same catagory as tall tales is blockheaded and dishonest.

:woowoo:woo:yahoo

[SirPhilip]

The only reason I can think you would do that is:tr: I should have looked before I lept up on such a politically charged issue. Some people here cling too much to reductionism, though. In the case of a "conspiracy" type assumption, it's credibility is defined by it's probability. A lot of people don't want to accept that this degree of political corruption and wrongdoing in this administration is indeed possible, but each side of the political divide have stepped up to voice strong concerns. That domestic spying program was the last straw, and I'm now one of them.

[bob_kark]

You have to admit, my theory about the Bush administration illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens was a lot better. Conspiracy theorists must be falling over themselves s-itting books out to keep up with the real dilemma too. If you came on here three months ago and started throwing out the idea there was a secret domestic spying program going on, it wouldn't hold up either. It's still a far cry from actual involvement or foreknowledge, but this is not a far out idea now, but putting it in the same catagory as tall tales is blockheaded and dishonest.

Therein lies the problem, you start off by talking about how the WTC was demoed and now want to fall back on saying that the Bush administration is corrupt? Your credibility has been destroyed. Why should anyone listen?

[Cylinder]

That domestic spying program was the last straw, and I'm now one of them.

You really do need to pick up a history book. Whether or not you agree on the procedural issues, secretly spying on enemy communications is a well-established incident to war.

[Johnny Pixels]

I think, in fairness, Johnny Pixels, it is important to mention the other obvious possibility here. The same people who planted the charges in the Twin towers also planted them in the Amsterdam apartment building.

I think what probably happened was that the conspirators blew up the Amsterdam apartment building just after the jetliner crashed into it as both a practice exercise and a diversion to cover what was their real target, the twin towers in NY, which they successfully destroyed eight years later..

Dang! I always miss the obvious ones. Need to watch more Scooby Doo I think


Jinkies! Look guys, a clue!
:velma:

[Johnny Pixels]

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

So how many ways are there that a building can fall down? There's collapsing vertically down like the WTC, or there's falling over like you see chimney stacks do, or there's a combination of some collapse and some falling. To me they could all look like controlled demolitions

If the plane hits the top of the building, then it's more likely that the collapse of the the small top section leads to the vertical collapse. If it hit at the bottom, then it's more likely to topple.

The design of the WTC meant that it would be less likely to topple as the support structure ran around the outside of the building, but also had a a central core support structure. A plane crashing into the side of the building would remove a section of the outer wall, but not enough to cause the building to topple. The resulting fire on the inside however, would weaken the central support structure. When this became malleable enough it would bend and collape inwards, as the outer support would still be in place, containing the collapse to a certain extent, preventing the building from suffereing a toppling collapse, but causing the vertical collapse failure seen in the WTC.

If history teaches us anything, it's that research works better than making things up.

[SirPhilip]

Therein lies the problem, you start off by talking about how the WTC was demoed and now want to fall back on saying that the Bush administration is corrupt? Your credibility has been destroyed. Why should anyone listen? (Cool! A skeptical partisan hack..)

It seems unlikely at this point that the current administration is not corrupt in some way. As to the attack, I'm not convinced it happened that way, but I'm suspicious of it now. Reductionism just shifts a scale of probability one way or another, but it doesn't effect the key issue. I think more investigation must be done. The emotional attachment in your reply is obvious, and isn't honest - you owe me an apology for that stupid remark, I think.

You are assigning concrete status to a real issue. I'm making a point that this degree of distrust is appropriate. I just did a google search and it appears another major paper is exploring the implications of the article:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13760721.htm

If this becomes a hot political button, everyone has zero credibility too by raising it?

[SirPhilip]

If history teaches us anything, it's that research works better than making things up.Indeed, which is why I hope issues like this can be resolved without a doubt. Right now, they aren't, and it is dishonest to say they are. My entire series of replies in a nutshell.

[RandFan]

If history teaches us anything, it's that research works better than making things up. Oh damn, that's good. :D

[RandFan]

Indeed, which is why I hope issues like this can be resolved without a doubt. Right now, they aren't, and it is dishonest to say they are. My entire series of replies in a nutshell. In the course of such events there is never complete resolution. It is the nature of complex events to create incongruous data. The point isn't to dismiss the data out of hand but to do ones best to reconcile it and have a willingness to consider the data in the overall scheme of things. If the data is significant then perhaps further inquiry is warranted. In this case it would seem that further inquiry would simply be a colossal waste of time, IMO.

[SirPhilip]

You really do need to pick up a history book. Whether or not you agree on the procedural issues, secretly spying on enemy communications is a well-established incident to war.Which is why so many senators, judges, and members of both parties regard it as a very serious breach of public trust.

I can just imagine walking into congress and shouting: "Hey! Whether or not you agree on procedural issues, secretly spying on enemy communications is a well-established incident of war!". By the way, change "war" to "conquest" in this case. Something, you being so familiar with history, will recognize as a reoccuring theme among sons of kings.

[bigred]

Evidence? :rolleyes:

You mean real evidence or the kind of dribblings that conspiracy theorists drum up in a pathetic PAY ATTENTION TO ME kinda way?

[SirPhilip]

In the course of such events there is never complete resolution. It is the nature of complex events to create incongruous data. The point isn't to dismiss the data out of hand but to do ones best to reconcile it and have a willingness to consider the data in the overall scheme of things. If the data is significant then perhaps further inquiry is warranted. In this case it would seem that further inquiry would simply be a colossal waste of time, IMO.I haven't researched the subject enough to disagree here. The amount of investigative articles written on it is enormous, and debating without further evidence would be silly. It's entirely possible there was no involvement. But stating as a fact there could not be or treating the possibility as bunk just reveals emotional attachment and denial, not honesty.

[SirPhilip]

You mean real evidence or the kind of dribblings that conspiracy theorists drum up in a pathetic PAY ATTENTION TO ME kinda way? Mein gott, switch to decaf and lighten up.

[bob_kark]

(Cool! A skeptical partisan hack..)

It seems unlikely at this point that the current administration is not corrupt in some way. As to the attack, I'm not convinced it happened that way, but I'm suspicious of it now. Reductionism just shifts a scale of probability one way or another, but it doesn't effect the key issue. I think more investigation must be done. The emotional attachment in your reply is obvious, and isn't honest - you owe me an apology for that stupid remark, I think.

You are assigning concrete status to a real issue. I'm making a point that this degree of distrust is appropriate. I just did a google search and it appears another major paper is exploring the implications of the article:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13760721.htm

If this becomes a hot political button, everyone has zero credibility too by raising it?

While I don't disagree that this administration may very well be corrupt, the point I'm trying to make is that by making outrageous claims, you destroy your credibility. In addition, you destroy the credibility of other people claiming that there is corruption within the White House by association. Anyone who claims that the administration regularly ejects reporters who ask tough questions, anyone who claims that the administration developed a clear plan to torture prisoners, anyone who claims that Bush went AWOL, anyone who claims that war in Iraq was waged to feed the pockets of Bush's cronies and supporters, is simply dismissed by the American public as being yet another nut case conspiracy theorist. Therefore, nothing is done.

In fact, few would have believed that Bush had ordered domestic spying unless it had come out in the press. So, because of you and other conspiracy theorists, rational people are not taken seriously when they make claims of corruption within the White House. Really, if anything, you owe me an apology.

[RandFan]

I haven't researched the subject enough to disagree here. The amount of investigative articles written on it is enormous, and debating without further evidence would be silly. It's entirely possible there was no involvement. But stating as a fact there could not be or treating the possibility as bunk just reveals emotional attachment and denial, not honesty. But I have read conspiracy theories and I have read the counter arguments and looked at the evidence. There simply is too much evidence against a 9/11 hoax.

Anything is possible, hell the world might actually be flat and maybe we didn't go to the moon. When good evidence surfaces for such beliefs I will look into them further but as it stands now there is nothing substantive that I have seen and I doubt that there will ever be for flat earth, moon landing hoax and a 9/11 hoax.

As James Randi is want to say, "you don't have to be so open minded that your brains fall out." Honesty doesn't preclude a judgment based on the available evidence. And the preponderance of the available evidence is against a 9/11 hoax.

[SirPhilip]

In fact, few would have believed that Bush had ordered domestic spying unless it had come out in the press. So, because of you and other conspiracy theorists, rational people are not taken seriously when they make claims of corruption within the White House. Really, if anything, you owe me an apology.Pah. I only recently started doubting the credibility of the administration I voted in. This is, in fact, the first time I ever raised the real possibility, publically, ever, and considered these assumptions as viable. Seriously though, a lot of you people really need to practice basic manners. It's childish as hell the way some of you immediately resort to stupid labels and ad hominems, and dissapointing as a lot of the discussion on the JREF Forums is anything but.

[bigred]

Mein gott, switch to decaf and lighten up.
Funny that's what I was going to say to you. :)

[RandFan]

Pah. I only recently started doubting the credibility of the administration I voted in. This is, in fact, the first time I ever raised the real possibility, publically, ever, and considered these assumptions as viable. Seriously though, a lot of you people really need to practice basic manners. It's childish as hell the way some of you immediately resort to stupid labels and ad hominems, and dissapointing as a lot of the discussion on the JREF Forums is anything but. JREF isn't for everyone. We have a nasty habit of not suffering foolish ideas gladly. If you are looking for a caring environment where all ideas are nurtured and respected then you are definitely in the wrong place. You might want to try www.mylittlepony.com (http://www.mylittlepony.com). They don't have a forum but they do have lots of pastel colors.

[bob_kark]

Pah. I only recently started doubting the credibility of the administration I voted in. This is, in fact, the first time I ever raised the real possibility, publically, ever, and considered these assumptions as viable.
Why do you think this makes any difference?

Seriously though, a lot of you people really need to practice basic manners. It's childish as hell the way some of you immediately resort to stupid labels and ad hominems, and dissapointing as a lot of the discussion on the JREF Forums is anything but.
You mean such as a conspiracy theorist? You attempted to present a conspiracy theory as fact. You still believe that there is a possibility that it is true even though you have evidence to the contrary. Why should I believe that you are not?

[SirPhilip]

But I have read conspiracy theories and I have read the counter arguments and looked at the evidence. There simply is too much evidence against a 9/11 hoax. Anything is possible, hell the world might actually be flat and maybe we didn't go to the moon. When good evidence surfaces for such beliefs I will look into them further but as it stands now there is nothing substantive that I have seen and I doubt that there will ever be for flat earth, moon landing hoax and a 9/11 hoax.As James Randi is want to say, "you don't have to be so open minded that your brains fall out." Honesty doesn't preclude a judgment based on the available evidence. And the preponderance of the available evidence is against a 9/11 hoax.Because your posts on other topics I've read have been balanced, I'll trust your judgement and defer further raising the issue until special information comes to light supporting the possibility. As to everyone else, including the 10 year olds here who type responses while staring up at a poster of an early draft of the baloney detection kit without the ad hominem above their monitor, sorry for the mess. I'll check to see if a topic has been brought up before doing that next time. :p

[Johnny Pixels]

If we're talking about a 9/11 hoax in terms of the destruction of the buildings was a set up, then why not just use the same method previously used in an attempt to destroy them, namely a large amount of explosives in the car park? That would be a better way to bring down a building, if that was the intention. The previous attempt didn't work as it was a van full of explosives, where what you need is properly placed demolition charges (ie explosives placed to destroy structural elements).

Why create an elaborate scheme to hijack planes to crash them into an already wired building? What if the hijackings failed? Then you've got the WTC wired for sound but no cover story to set it off. If we're talking about a high level goverment cover up then you've got military people involved, and high level military is involved in planning, and anyone that makes half decent plans knows that virtually no plan survives contact with the enemy.

[SirPhilip]

You mean such as a conspiracy theorist? You attempted to present a conspiracy theory as fact. This is getting tiring, Bob. Why (where) would (did) I do such a thing?


You still believe that there is a possibility that it is true even though you have evidence to the contrary. Why should I believe that you are not? Because Vice President Cheney is a mean head and President Bush is an unethical stupid head and they don't even bother to spice up their own conspiracy theory (nonexistant war against us) and refuse to get real jobs.

[bob_kark]

This is getting tiring, Bob. Why (where) would (did) I do such a thing?

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

As to why, I have no idea.

Because Vice President Cheney is a mean head and President Bush is an unethical stupid head and they don't even bother to spice up their own conspiracy theory (nonexistant war against us) and refuse to get real jobs.

Evidence?

[Mycroft]

I should have looked before I lept up on such a politically charged issue. Some people here cling too much to reductionism, though. In the case of a "conspiracy" type assumption, it's credibility is defined by it's probability. A lot of people don't want to accept that this degree of political corruption and wrongdoing in this administration is indeed possible, but each side of the political divide have stepped up to voice strong concerns. That domestic spying program was the last straw, and I'm now one of them.

Your logical disconnect is taking "Bush is corrupt" and pretending it's evidence of anything you want it to be.

I think there are secret naval submarine bases underneath the Arctic ocean where the US military conducts experiments on UFO propulsion systems.

What, you don’t believe me? Well, a year ago you might have found it hard to believe our President was illegally and secretly bypassing the courts and congress to spy on citizens.

See how it works? It becomes evidence of whatever you want. All you're really saying is, "You should give my absurd thing more credibility because this other absurd thing turned out to be true" and that isn't logical.

[SirPhilip]

Your logical disconnect is taking "Bush is corrupt" and pretending it's evidence of anything you want it to be.If indeed he is revealed to be a clinical sociopath/disordered NPD by one action behind the public's back, then the imagination truly can, and should, soar.

See how it works? It becomes evidence of whatever you want. All you're really saying is, "You should give my absurd thing more credibility because this other absurd thing turned out to be true" and that isn't logical.He is likely going to be investigated, it is just a question of whether he is corrupt or not. If not, then flights of assumption like these are unfounded. If he is, this opens up a pandoras box (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sanity_1.PdF) and everyone here should recognize why that is. This is a diversion from my normally guarded statements, because I was personally involved with a primary psychopath, and it was the most shocking and unbelievable, world-tilting thing you could ever imagine. As a conservative Republican, I also personally supported this administration, feeling democracy in the middle east was a noble cause, but I'm also partially responsible for the deaths of 30,000+ people also - I genuinely hope he is not corrupt, but my better judgement is overriding evidence at this point.

[Beerina]

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?


Why would a government seeking to pull off such a thing use the IDs of real, existing, living people? They're the government, they can create entirely fictional people, complete with legitimate birth certificates and social security numbers. To say nothing of faking up passports of fake people from other countries.

Or just kidnap the real ones and make sure they never reappear again.


* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000

Was this a training exercise on rescuing people after an accident, or in preparation for an attack?


* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite.

First the woo woos are all up in arms that Cheney issued the order to shoot the planes down, now his order was to not shoot them down?!?!? :boggled:


* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires.

Because ignorant woos selling books deliberately mislead you with facts. The steel didn't have to "melt", which is the fancy scientific turn for "turn to a liquid". It merely had to get hotter, and the hotter it got, the weaker and softer it became. Also, was this certification with the coating that was removed in the initial collisions? In any case, what were the values for the steel used in those actual buildings, not steel in general? Also, burning wood at the edge of a fire is much cooler than the white hot coals at the center. A larger conflagration of fuel will produce a hotter fire at the core.

[aerocontrols]

Why would a government seeking to pull off such a thing use the IDs of real, existing, living people? They're the government, they can create entirely fictional people, complete with legitimate birth certificates and social security numbers. To say nothing of faking up passports of fake people from other countries.

Not to mention the incredible lack of foresight required in the alleged 'choice' of who was behind it.

Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon.

We didn't want to invade any of those countries!

Jeebus Wolfowitz Cheney, put a Cuban or two in the group or something.

[SirPhilip]

Funny that's what I was going to say to you. :)I'll admit I have 400mg of caffeine anhydrous USP flowing through my veins, and could crap more rhetoric than Jack Sarfatti on PCP right now, but was it that obvious? I bet you are one of those pesky Indigo brats, aren't you.

[epepke]

Because your posts on other topics I've read have been balanced, I'll trust your judgement and defer further raising the issue until special information comes to light supporting the possibility.

That probably has more to do with the fact that they don't gore your personal ox than any other reason.

[SirPhilip]

That probably has more to do with the fact that they don't gore your personal ox than any other reason.I'd say anyone who doesn't look on this administration with some distrust and suspicion right now is being willfully ignorant. What is it now, an estimated 60% of Americans don't? If sins did exist, I would hope one would have been a lack of suspicion for political leaders throughout history. If you become president, you should be given the benefit of the doubt to a point.

[Mycroft]

If indeed he is revealed to be a clinical sociopath/disordered NPD by one action behind the public's back, then the imagination truly can, and should, soar.

That's what I'm saying. As long as you depend on imagination and not evidence, you will always be a conspiracy kook.

I'd say anyone who doesn't look on this administration with some distrust and suspicion right now is being willfully ignorant.

There is a huge difference between looking on an administration with distrust and suspicion and claiming the administration is guilty of engineering a terrorist attack against the population.

[epepke]

I'd say anyone who doesn't look on this administration with some distrust and suspicion right now is being willfully ignorant.

I look at this administration, not only with distrust and ignorance, but with outright hatred.

But I don't see that this has anything to do with your personal problems with RandFan, who is not a member of this administration.

I've both agreed and disagreed with things that RandFan has said, but I don't think there's a lot of difference in his approach. I'm suggesting that you have a problem with him because, right now, he's goring your personal ox.

[Regnad Kcin]

You know how there are some cars that are equipped with those vinyl tops that are intended to make them look like convertibles? And it's always a 4-door sedan? For the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone believes phony is classy, or even mildly attractive. But then I find I'm sorta thankful the owners of these cars are so willing to loudly broadcast their near total lack of taste; it helps me to steer clear of them (chortle).

So it is with outlandish conspiracy claims.

[SirPhilip]

I look at this administration, not only with distrust and ignorance, but with outright hatred. But I don't see that this has anything to do with your personal problems with RandFan, who is not a member of this administration. I've both agreed and disagreed with things that RandFan has said, but I don't think there's a lot of difference in his approach. I'm suggesting that you have a problem with him because, right now, he's goring your personal ox. Personal ox? What you call my "personal ox" is in reality a disappointment, and a tremendous sense of willful ignorance for re-electing him and not getting a clue earlier. Yet you have hatred for it and it isn't a "personal ox". Look, debating whether a well connected group of billionares can knock an enormous building (s) down and make it look like an attack is, in essense, a wild conspiracy theory. It isn't when you have a psychopath driving. Evidence then becomes a goal, and a secondary consideration to motive. Probably one of the most glaring, stupid oversights of mine has been to overlook his unapparent sense of guilt. I'm not in disagreement with Randfan , he just doesn't have a logical disconnect based on a fundamental reason, I do. Evidence is moot when you are dealing with the morally insane - they aren't fictional people, they gravitate primarily to positions of control and are impossible to spot from a normal person, only by their actions. In this case, innocent until proven guilty. But if there's really a ball to push down the mountain, it's a big ball and a steep, tall mountain, and be prepared for the twilight zone. A twilight zone a lot of bewildered significant others have inhabited on a personal level, or as many woos like to say "As above, so below".

And yeah, I hope someone reading this will let their brain fall out and take this on faith. We're dealing with tens of billions of dollars spent (that could have went to a real humanitarian effort, or just better public schools) to murder 30,000+ men, women, children, American and allied soldiers, and at the center of it all is someone without apparent capacity for personal responsibility and saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite behind the public's back. What motive is there for this? There is none, failure to plan ahead is a characteristic of it (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm), as any criminal psychologist will tell you.

[epepke]

Personal ox? What you call my "personal ox" is in reality a dissapointment, and a tremendous sense of willful ignorance for re-electing him and not getting a clue earlier. Yet you have hatred for it and it isn't a "personal ox".

Hatred? No; I'm just amused. You don't rate high enough for my hatred. Sorry.

But, I have to remind you again that you did not re-elect Randfan. You may have re-elected someone else, but that's your problem. If you had the bad taste to re-elect Bush, then go find a punching bag or a pinball machine or something, because your bad judgement is really not my problem, except inasmuch as your actions helped make this planet more unpleasant for me.

[LostAngeles]

...


WHOA, nelly. I was quoting the article and offering answers! Your post makes it look like I'm saying that stuff. Probably too late to fix, but I just want to make it clear those aren't my words. You quoted my post, removed my answers and the internal quote boxes. Not cool, dude.

My post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1420909#post1420909

[LostAngeles]

Just out of curiosity, I hit the quote button on my post and it spit back everything that wasn't in quote boxes, so wow. Yeah. Just... wow.

[SirPhilip]

Just out of curiosity, I hit the quote button on my post and it spit back everything that wasn't in quote boxes, so wow. Yeah. Just... wow. Works fine here. You really need to keep track of all those arms, one slip and a blacklisted sequence of words could be slammed forth and mean the death of your credibility among some of the howlers here.

[SirPhilip]

Hatred? No; I'm just amused. You don't rate high enough for my hatred. Sorry. "It" was the Bush administration, obviously, not me. We'll just pretend that's my fault and move on. We also need to work on those insults, starting with like um, a point.

But, I have to remind you again that you did not re-elect Randfan. You may have re-elected someone else, but that's your problem. If you had the bad taste to re-elect Bush, then go find a punching bag or a pinball machine or something, because your bad judgement is really not my problem, except inasmuch as your actions helped make this planet more unpleasant for me. Just wait till text gets smaller, your eyes get yet even worse, and the subject is yeti manned flying saucers.

[NoZed Avenger]

A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans.


*That* is considered hardly a stretch?

We assume an evil motive, assume a psycopath, assume that everyone around him and everyone involved in it is just as bad, and then it is easy to believe that there is a massive coverup over 3,000 dead (Americans and others).

Sure. I can see now how that all logically follows.

[SirPhilip]

*That* is considered hardly a stretch?

We assume an evil motive, assume a psycopath, assume that everyone around him and everyone involved in it is just as bad, and then it is easy to believe that there is a massive coverup over 3,000 dead (Americans and others). Sure. I can see now how that all logically follows.It logically follows to strongly suspect - not believe (although I could forgive anyone for having made up their mind at this point). It elevates the possibility to likely that major wrongdoing has been done behind the public's back. What that is, remains to be investigated.

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't see how it isn't a reasonable assumption to say "key failure points inside the building could have been weakened or blown out completely" at a certain point in time. I'm not attempting to argue it was a controlled demolition, but - [snip].

But you do say here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1422202&postcount=24

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition.

If you aren't arguing it was a controlled definition because you cannot explain how they managed to get all those charges set (or explain why they wanted planes), then the "suspicious" way the towers fell have no relevance. Either you are suggesting that it was controlled -- in which case there are a lot of questions -- or you aren't, in which case the way it fell is a red herring that means nothing.

[NeilC]

You posted the question "was 9/11 a hoax". Everyone has answered no and provided good reason.

You on the other hand have provided zero reason to believe it is, other than a complete lack of knowledge of demolition, an "odd" feeling, some foggy general suspicion of Bush and some links to crackpots who think everything is a conspiracy.

You clearly believe this rubbish but don't expect others to, unless you want to provide some evidence that isn't laughable.

[SirPhilip]

You posted the question "was 9/11 a hoax". Everyone has answered no and provided good reason. You on the other hand have provided zero reason to believe it is, other than a complete lack of knowledge of demolition, an "odd" feeling, some foggy general suspicion of Bush and some links to crackpots who think everything is a conspiracy.Justify this statement.

You clearly believe this rubbish but don't expect others to, unless you want to provide some evidence that isn't laughable. I posted an article - admittedly impulsively, for others to comment on. The reaction was a bit disappointing, but at no time did I defend the article, because, simply put, I hadn't researched it enough to properly weigh it (my entire reason for posting it here). I base the assumption on ethics, not evidence. If there was evidence, concerned posts like these wouldn't be necessary. I understand that it is going to be hard for a lot of people to come to terms with the mounting ethical dilemma of his magnitude, that in hoping for a demoracy you have supported people who have done nothing but infringed upon and harmed others, that continue to do so, and have no sense of guilt over this, and may indeed have orchestrated it from the beginning. Don't think for a second that I don't hope it turns out that you are right. I'd like nothing more than to see a modern democracy in Iraq, and to believe Bush is a courageous person willing to sacrifice his political career for the potential of stability in a region fraught with conflict and suffering - I'm sure others here feel the same way, despite the real circumstances and red flags now. It's the same reason countless others buy into con artistry. Tell people what they want to hear and they will let their better judgement down. Bush isn't healing or helping anyone, including himself.

[NoZed Avenger]

I base the assumption on ethics, not evidence.


Without evidence -- until there actually *is* evidence -- there is no ethical dilemna.

You are not just putting the cart before the horse, you're signing a 20 year lease and building a cart factory in the hopes that one day the small mammals you see might one day evolve into a horse-like creature.

[SirPhilip]

Without evidence -- until there actually *is* evidence -- there is no ethical dilemna. You are not just putting the cart before the horse, you're signing a 20 year lease and building a cart factory in the hopes that one day the small mammals you see might one day evolve into a horse-like creature.If that's the way you feel, let's just agree to disagree. My apologies again if you and others felt my assumption was wrongheaded.

[davefoc]

SirPhilip,
Do you understand that the majority of the people that routinely participate in this forum have a negative view of Bush?

There was a thread on whether Bush was the worst president of all time and there a lot of people who thought that was at least plausible.

It is far beyond the scope of this post to even begine to summarize the wide range of issues and actions that Bush is routinely criticized for.

And yet among all the people who routinely participate in this forum even among those with very negative views of Bush, I don't think you will find one that sees any significant possibility either that Bush or somebody in his administration was involved with causing the 9/11 disaster.

Of course this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does go to one of your premises which seems to be that people just can't bring themselves to believe that Bush is an unethical, incompetent president and therefore aren't open to the idea that he might have overseen the attack. The problem with this is that a whole lot of people on this forum do think that Bush is unethical and incompetent and not one of those people think that he had any involvement with the 9/11 attack.

It seems to be the case that every significant historical event today is accompanied by wacky conspiracy theories. So the existence of a wacky conspiracy theory is absolutely no evidence that there is anything to the wacky conspiracy theory since regardless of the underlying facts wacky conspiracy theories will always be created and disseminated.

But in this particular case, the wacky conspiracy theory is even less plausible than usual as far as wacky conspiracy theories go. That is the main reason that people in this forum even with their antiBush biases don't find it credible.

So, you don't seem to have been happy with the responses to your posts about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why? You asked what people thought about some of the craziest theories ever put forth. They responded with reasons why they thought they were crazy and they responded with links to articles debunking the theories. What were you looking for from the participants in this thread?

[gnome]

I gave up on the idea of these conspiracy theories when I realized that none of the supposed methods of faking it were easier than what the official story says, and all of them left more questions unanswered than the supposed discrepancies in the official account.

When occasionally thinking dark thoughts, I wonder if this administration were deliberately less than vigilant, because they knew that a major terrorist attack would let them sail their agenda through congress... but that is the worst I imagine of them. Most of the time I discount even that idea.

[davefoc]

Al Franken and I assume others make the case that the Bush administration failed to follow up on important leads and ignored advice to be very worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack. I found the theory plausible but didn't follow up much to see what the evidence for and against the idea was.

I think there is no question that the Bush administration was thinking a lot about stars wars defense systems when they took over and they were insufficiently concerned about the possibility of a terrorist attack. So I suspect they deserve some blame.

I think the FAA is the number one culprit however. There was plenty of reason to think that securing the flight deck doors was an important thing to do and they did nothing on the issue. I think the managment of the airline companies that didn't secure the flight deck doors and lobbied the FAA against rules that would have required it deserve a whole heap of blame too.

I guess the board of American Airlines didn't agree though since they gave the CEO about $20,000,000 in benefits including a lifetime country club membership when he stepped down after the attacks. But not to worry the US government gave them millions in loan guarantees after the attacks so I guess they could afford it.

[bob_kark]

Al Franken and I assume others make the case that the Bush administration failed to follow up on important leads and ignored advice to be very worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack. I found the theory plausible but didn't follow up much to see what the evidence for and against the idea was.


If you're looking for a good book on the subject, I'd recommend Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies. It is a bit one sided, due to the fact that it is written from his first hand experience. There are also detractors who try to poke holes in the book. However, I tend to take the word of a man who worked in the Department of Defense for 30 years and served under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bushie.

[Kevin_Lowe]

However, I tend to take the word of a man who worked in the Department of Defense for 30 years and served under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bushie.

I tend to think such a man would know where a lot of bodies are buried, and would walk a very careful line between revealing things he wants to reveal, and not revealing things that if revealed would harm the interests of the USA or the Powers That Be within the USA.

[Ladewig]

Justify this statement.

I posted an article - admittedly impulsively, for others to comment on. The reaction was a bit disappointing, but at no time did I defend the article, because, simply put, I hadn't researched it enough to properly weigh it (my entire reason for posting it here). I base the assumption on ethics, not evidence.


There are sites on the 'net that claim that the December 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people was not the result of an underwater earthquake but rather was the result of an underwater hydrogen bomb. Would you have us investigate the possibility of Bush ordering a bomb be placed where it would do the most damage because he is, as you put it, a psychopath?

[bob_kark]

I tend to think such a man would know where a lot of bodies are buried, and would walk a very careful line between revealing things he wants to reveal, and not revealing things that if revealed would harm the interests of the USA or the Powers That Be within the USA.

Well, when it comes to the subject at hand, he reveals quite a bit.

[SirPhilip]

SirPhilip, Do you understand that the.. Point taken.

[TjW]

(snippage)
I think the FAA is the number one culprit however. There was plenty of reason to think that securing the flight deck doors was an important thing to do and they did nothing on the issue.



Why? The policy since the mid 60's was to give a hijacker whatever they demanded.

I don't think it was a well-thought-out policy, but given that that _was_ the policy, reinforcing the cockpit doors wouldn't have made any sense.

[davefoc]

Why? The policy since the mid 60's was to give a hijacker whatever they demanded.

I don't think it was a well-thought-out policy, but given that that _was_ the policy, reinforcing the cockpit doors wouldn't have made any sense.

There was good reason to believe that the policy needed to be changed.

There was an aircraft that went down off the coast of Africa, possibly because of a codkpit take over by somebody bent on suicide and there was an incident over Paris where there was an attempt to fly an aircraft into the Eiffel Tower I believe.

In addition, Israel has had armed pilots and lockable flight deck doors for awhile. My thought is that they know something about what terrorists might do and we might have followed their lead.

[Checkmite]

I like the idea of the passenger jets being remotely-piloted, but I don't see how nobody noticed the equipment being installed in the planes. I mean, I can allow for the outside possibility that someone could plant explosives in a building unnoticed, but I'm not so sure a pilot would fail to notice the new camera sticking up out of the top of the glarescreen.

Actually, the idea of a plane being Microsoft Flight Simulator-ed into a building is kind of unnerving. I'm fairly good at flying the 737 now, but I shudder to think of all those early bad landings...

[SirPhilip]

I like the idea of the passenger jets being remotely-piloted, but I don't see how nobody noticed the equipment being installed in the planes. I mean, I can allow for the outside possibility that someone could plant explosives in a building unnoticed, but I'm not so sure a pilot would fail to notice the new camera sticking up out of the top of the glarescreen.Well, the consensus here is it's very unlikely, so it's inappropriate to really debate further without new information. But I wouldn't be surprised in the least if suddenly it became news he was involved or had foreknowledge of the attacks, regardless of what anyone here says. Historically, kings and emperors' were heavily influenced by the wealthy and influential, today it is probably the first consideration. This administration is a short bus it seems, with Bush superficially at the wheel, a few others actually driving, and 10 others behind the scenes telling them where to go. The real shocking revelations are probably going to be intent-related and collaborative; but the idea he's masterminded wrongdoing is probably off-base. At times he seems a cat's paw and patsy as well, taking the public fall for a myriad of failures.

Actually, the idea of a plane being Microsoft Flight Simulator-ed into a building is kind of unnerving. I'm fairly good at flying the 737 now, but I shudder to think of all those early bad landings... A 10 year old can get an idea how to fly a 737 into a building after 10 minutes fooling around in that.

[SirPhilip]

There are sites on the 'net that claim that the December 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people was not the result of an underwater earthquake but rather was the result of an underwater hydrogen bomb.This is relevant to an event that was the catalyst and broken-record talking point for Bush's invasions and actions five years running, and the results of which have created deep public distrust?

Would you have us investigate the possibility of Bush ordering a bomb be placed where it would do the most damage because he is, as you put it, a psychopath?No, but I'd have you take a bombshell like foreknowledge of 9/11 as an example in point, to consider psychology and behavior as important in uncovering evidence, in some cases, as a jury does. I personally think he doesn't give much thought to any of his decisions - assuming they are his (a good topic itself). I don't believe there is any real logic or reason behind what he does, he gets a kick out of it and the attention, positive and negative, is global and immense.