9-11 conspiracy theory

[YY]

Way too much to discuss and way too little time to do so. You should really look a little deeper into some of the unanswered questions to honor the fallen. If you're totally convinced that the official story is 100% accurate, you should just kiss your liberties goodbye.

Although, it makes sense that atheists want to pin this crime on religious extremeists. It makes their argument more credible.

PS - I'm glad you all saw that the Pentagon could actually be spray painted for a reason rather than giving me stupid crap about your theories of where this picture came from. I mean seriously.

[Klokinator]

Let's not forget your INCREDIBLY INTELLIGENT THEORY THAT YOU'VE TRIED TO MAKE US FORGET YOU ACTUALLY SAID where you claim that tiny hole is actually where the plane entered.

The pentagon plane slammed into a 10 foot thick concrete wall going more than 400 MPH. It was instantly incinerated by both the explosively hot fuel, the impact of a ten foot thick fucking concrete wall, and the fact planes are not made out of the strongest metals. Why? Because it's cheaper, AND lighter.

Where's the beef? No evidence that this happened. Let's just imagine that what you say is true. IF that were the case, there would be no way for the plane to go through three rings of the Pentagon right?



Click here for a pretty comprehensive look at the Pentagon attack.

Oh shit me and my lies got nothing on you and your unsubstantiated claims!

[screwtape]

Way too much to discuss and way too little time to do so. You should really look a little deeper into some of the unanswered questions to honor the fallen. If you're totally convinced that the official story is 100% accurate, you should just kiss your liberties goodbye.

Although, it makes sense that atheists want to pin this crime on religious extremeists. It makes their argument more credible.

Mrs Screwtape worked in lower Manhattan in 2001.  When I tried to call her that morning, I could not get through.  The phone lines had been damaged.  For hours I did not know if she was okay.  It was a bad day for us, but it was much worse for others. 

So, fucko, you might want to hold off on that weak-ass emotional blackmail shit you are trying there.  You might also want to hold off on that "atheists have an agenda" bullshit too.  There are several people here who think politics, culture and plain stupidity had more to do with the attacks that religion.

You are really pathetic.

[Historicity]

So, fucko, you might want to hold off on that weak-ass emotional blackmail shit you are trying there.

The technical name of that fallacy is Argumentum ad Misericordium (Argument to Mercy).  Effectively it states, "This situation is so pitiable that we have to give up facts and logic!"

[pingnak]

http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/rainbow-dim.html

[YY]

LOL OMG I really hit the bottom of the barrell here didn't I? Klokinator? Did you even read anything? Or do you look at a picture, make a post, look at the picture a little closer, make a post, take a nap, make a post? Are you and C the same person? 

OK, here's what really happened. You said . . .

The pentagon plane slammed into a 10 foot thick concrete wall going more than 400 MPH. It was instantly incinerated by both the explosively hot fuel, the impact of a ten foot thick fucking concrete wall, and the fact planes are not made out of the strongest metals. Why? Because it's cheaper, AND lighter.

And then I posted:

IF that were the case, there would be no way for the plane to go through three rings of the Pentagon right?



Click here for a pretty comprehensive look at the Pentagon attack.

Then you said . . .

Let's not forget your INCREDIBLY INTELLIGENT THEORY THAT YOU'VE TRIED TO MAKE US FORGET YOU ACTUALLY SAID where you claim that tiny hole is actually where the plane entered.

First, I said that the plane went thruogh three rings of the Pentagon. The picture I posted has words right on it saying "Penetration to other side of Pentagon 'C-Ring'. Supposedly a jet fuselage made the hole with a carbon nose cone and causing no lateral damage." Maybe you didn't know that the C-ring is the 3rd interior layer of the Pentagon's 5 rings. This image shows that something may have penetrated with enough force to go through the back of the 3rd or C-Ring of the building. You said everything was instantly incinerated when it hit a 10 foot concrete wall (which also isn't true, the walls were 2 feet thick). Although workers may have made this hole, it was also reported by popular magazines that a part of the plane penetrated and made this hole.

So I'm not saying this is where the plane entered. And plus, the picture you compared this to was a picture of the Pentagon after the floors collapsed. That was NOT the damage upon entry.

[YY]

The thing that really gets me about conspiracy theorists in cases like this is: why are you even speculating about any kind of far-fetched conspiracy at all?  Hell, the conspiracy that actually did exist -- the whole 9/11 plot cooked up by Al Qaeda -- is already pretty seriously far out.  The entire plot is the kind of thing that makes best-selling novels, for pete's sake.

I'm not speculating. I'm merely trying to figure out if the facts presented offer enough proof to sell the official story. Does the story make sense? Usually, when there's foul play, there's money involved. Did anybody ever try to follow the money?

The easiest thing to do would be to USE religion, yet again, to blow a smoke screen over a major atrocity like this. Follow the money!

The counter points are usually a couple of things -

1) how could all of these explosives have been planted in the building and gone unnoticed? Well, have you ever seen a magic trick? It's all misdirection. Just extrapolate that to a large scale and there you go. It's entirely possible to misdirect groups of people.

2) how could all of the people involved keep their mouth shut? Well, whoever did it, they did keep their mouths shut. Remember the Manhattan project? Pearl Harbor? All major plans with major players who managed to keep their mouths shut.

[YY]

Wow, conspiracy theorist still exist? here a link. you might want to read before you make your self a bigger fool

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

The age of photo shop and people with undeniable evidence

Quote of the year. I bet you don't cheat on your taxes either.

[grant]

Did anybody ever try to follow the money?

Thats a shocker.

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't think this was looked at during the millions of hours of investigation?

Get a grip.

[YY]

The World Trade Center had steel beams as the skeleton of its core.  It had the unique piece of architectural engineering of the outer parts being aluminum beams.

My father worked in a metal fabricating shop with lots of welding and cutting torch work.  He had lots of iron powder in his clothes.  When I had a magnet at home it quickly became covered with steel dust.

The firemen and construction workers used a lot of cutting torches to first get to possible survivors, then corpses, and then to demolish the ruins to be transported to scrap yards. 

There's your dust.

This has absolutely nothng to do with unspent aluminothermic explosives.

BTW, in my high school chemistry class the teacher set off a thermite bomb behind a pane of glass.  He was killed and 5 students critically injured  It burned with a bright blue glare with a lot of ultraviolet light and melted down into some sand.  He then took out the hot dollop of melted steel produced by it.

What does that mean when you write something but do a strikethrough?

Thermite is not an explosive.  It burns slowly.

Thermite burns with a blinding blue glare which would've been seen on 9/11.

If you can't see the beams, what makes you think you'd be able to see the blue glare? Beams are usually behind walls in all of the buildings I've been in.

Thermite leaves globs of molten iron -- not found at WTC site.

[YY]

Did anybody ever try to follow the money?

Thats a shocker.

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't think this was looked at during the millions of hours of investigation?

Get a grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Silverstein put up 14 million of his own money to lease the WTC buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5. He then took out an insurance policy a few months before the attacks and won a settlement of 4.55 BILLION after going for 7.1 Billion.

[Klokinator]

So let's see if I'm getting this right.



Okayyyy, so this is not the hole the plane entered. But it also IS! This is where the plane entered before the building collapsed!

BUT HOLY SHIT WAIT CONSPIRACY!!!! THIS BUILDING ISN'T ON FIRE! WHY IS IT MARKED "PUNCH OUT" ISN'T THAT A SATANIC PENTAGRAM??

THE SATANISTS SET IT ALL UP! ALSO THE ILLUMINATI! AND THE GOVERNMENT TOO!!!!

/trolling/

Seriously man, you post a picture with words implying you think it's where the plane landed, call everyone stupid when they catch you in your tracks, and change your wording ever so slightly that I can notice it. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be acting a little strange. I think you're from the government, that's what I think. These little things you do, small errors you make, they're really setting off my conspiracy radar! I zoomed in on a grainy image and I spotted you picking your nose, except, I'm pretty sure there was a microchip in your booger.

Microchip? More like MICROCONSPIRACY! While you try to delude us by pointing the finger at the government, you actually are probably working for the... uh... RUSSIANS!




Do you see how pathetic this looks? This is what you look like, throwing conspiracies around. Incidentally, I have a sister who believes the Loose Change videos, heart and soul. I believed them for a short while too, until I realized they're a bunch of bullshitters. Do yourself a favor and just shut up man, you're only ruining your reputation on this forum (It ain't amazing anyway) and looking like an idiot.

[grant]

Did anybody ever try to follow the money?

Thats a shocker.

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't think this was looked at during the millions of hours of investigation?

Get a grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Silverstein put up 14 million of his own money to lease the WTC buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5. He then took out an insurance policy a few months before the attacks and won a settlement of 4.55 BILLION after going for 7.1 Billion.

Ummm... I'll type really slow so you keep up.

I'm responding to your statement "Did anybody ever try to follow the money?".

And I'll say - of course they did you idiot. For you to consider that such an obvious investigative path was ignored exposes brain activity at its lowest point.

You even prove it to yourself... How did you find out about insurance?

I'm loathe to mock people because of posts they make on the internet. But in your case you've overstepped the mark and exposed yourself as a deluded fool. Nobody shoots themselves down intentionally. I'm sure you think you're okay mentally, but thats just part of the delusion. Get some help mate, you got problems.

[jaimehlers]

Aluminothermic^Wiki isn't a reference to an explosion, it's a reference to an exothermic reaction (albeit one that requires a relatively high energy start-up cost).  It's used in metallurgy, such as when welding rail tracks or copper wire.  I found this out in thirty seconds by using Google.  Seriously, didn't you look it up?

The fact that any 9/11 conspiracy theorist could seriously suggest that aluminothermite was used as an explosive can only prove that said 9/11 conspiracy theorist hasn't even attempted to independently and seriously research the subject for themselves.

Seriously, look up "aluminothermic" by itself on Google, and you get page after page of references to welding techniques.  Look up "aluminothermic nanocomposite", and you get page after page of conspiracy theorists claiming that it was used to cause a "controlled demolition" of the WTC buildings (though some of the more sensible ones don't actually try to claim it was an explosion).  Of course serious researchers haven't taken the possibility into account, because there is no such thing as an "aluminothermic nanocomposite explosive".  For that matter, I'm sure there are more effective means of creating a controlled demolition than using an incendiary reaction with such a small area-of-effect.

[Mr. Blackwell]

For that matter, I'm sure there are more effective means of creating a controlled demolition than using an incendiary reaction with such a small area-of-effect.

I love a good conspiracy but as far as this one goes I havn't made up my mind one way or the other. For things like this I tend to use Occums Razor. But one question as to your statement here. If someone wanted to make a building collapse and make it look like it was caused by airplanes smaking into it, wouldn't they want to make sure there was very little evidence of tampering? With the whole world watching you don't want things to go BOOM in a situation such as this.

[JeffPT]

I love a good conspiracy but as far as this one goes I havn't made up my mind one way or the other. For things like this I tend to use Occums Razor. But one question as to your statement here. If someone wanted to make a building collapse and make it look like it was caused by airplanes smaking into it, wouldn't they want to make sure there was very little evidence of tampering? With the whole world watching you don't want things to go BOOM in a situation such as this.

I find this kind of stuff so funny! 

Evidence of tampering is evidence of tampering, whereas no evidence of tampering is also evidence of tampering.  You never know what to believe. 

Conspiracy theorist: "Look at all the evidence! It must be a conspiracy!"
Skeptic: "Actually, when you examine the evidence closely, there appears to be reasonable explanations for each of those."
Conspiracy theorist: "EXACTLY!  There's very little evidence, and that's just what they want you to think!" 

It's a lot like the Salem witch hunts.  If you say you're a witch, then you're obviously a witch.  If you don't say you're a witch, you're obviously lying about being a witch. 

I know you're on the fence Jay, and I'm not picking on you per se.  I'm only pointing out the irony of it all. 

[jaimehlers]

jaybwell:  It's true that they wouldn't want to use something obvious, but that's part of the reason thermite would have been unsuitable.  It isn't that thermite doesn't burn hot enough, it's that it doesn't burn long enough.  To make it burn long enough, they would either have had to use so much thermite that it would have been very obvious, or they would have had to use other things besides thermite to keep it burning.  It really just complicates matters too much to use thermite as an incendiary.

[Gnu Ordure]

Jeff,

I find this kind of stuff so funny!

They do the same kind of thing with the Bible:

Skeptic: There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible.
Christian: Yes, there are!! And that proves that it's not fabricated - because if you were going to make something up, you wouldn't deliberately put contradictions in it, would you??!!??
Skeptic: WTF?

[Klokinator]

This particular article shows the problems with the conspiracy about the width of the wingspan VS size of the hole. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#bigplane

I was going to post more, but I don't feel like it anymore. The issue with conspiracy theories in a heated debate like this, is that nobody can win the debate. And if I can't win a debate, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

[YY]

Ummm... I'll type really slow so you keep up.

I'm responding to your statement "Did anybody ever try to follow the money?".

And I'll say - of course they did you idiot. For you to consider that such an obvious investigative path was ignored exposes brain activity at its lowest point.

You even prove it to yourself... How did you find out about insurance?

I'm loathe to mock people because of posts they make on the internet. But in your case you've overstepped the mark and exposed yourself as a deluded fool. Nobody shoots themselves down intentionally. I'm sure you think you're okay mentally, but thats just part of the delusion. Get some help mate, you got problems.

Not sure where you're from, but here in America, it doesn't mean you're innocent if you haven't been charged with a crime. We've got a long line of crooks roaming the streets and rolling around in ill-gotten fortunes. Not all of them mind you, but a few. And don't put it past what horrible acts some would do for money.

Looks like your naievite is the one with problems.

[grant]

Not all of them mind you, but a few.

Not all of who?

What are you talking about?

Do you understand what I wrote? Because it sure doesn't seem so.

DO YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THAT INVESTIGATIONS INTO SEPTEMBER 11 DID NOT INCLUDE A FINANCIAL ASPECT AS A MOTIVE?

By the way, what sort of country wouldn't see you as innocent if you haven't committed a crime? Are you sure thats how your judicial system operates?

[screwtape]

Looks like your naievite is the one with problems.

classic conspiracy theorist retort.  All the rest of you fools are naive, while the theorist is the only one with a sober and serious understanding of the situation.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

by my count YY checks off at least 7 of the 10.


more on loons like YY 
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201103/personality-and-conspiracy-theories-what-your-beliefs-say-about-you

[velkyn]

oh my oh my.  I just knew it would be this good    and even more thrashing about by YY with false accusations.

[YY]

DO YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THAT INVESTIGATIONS INTO SEPTEMBER 11 DID NOT INCLUDE A FINANCIAL ASPECT AS A MOTIVE?

By the way, what sort of country wouldn't see you as innocent if you haven't committed a crime? Are you sure thats how your judicial system operates?

If your best friend found a bag full of money, would you call the police? Now, extrapolate this to corporate crooks and you may see what I'm getting at. Plus, you're asking how our judicial system operates. Would it surprise you if these crooks didn't even make it to the judicial system?

Here are some small fish . . .

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

. . . many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.

banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice

PS - I don't just blame bankers for our current financial collapse. The blame goes around to everybody. We (meaning govt., bankers, securities traders, mgt. companies, certain individuals) all had a part to play in this mess.

http://paulsjusticepage.com/RichGetRicher/fraud.htm

Even in the highly publicized S & L scandal, few executives actually went to prison in spite of the first President Bush’s promise: “We aim for a simple uncompromising position. Throw the crooks in jail.” [vii]  And, for those who did go to prison, the average term was 36 months, compared to 56 months for burglary, 38 months for car theft and 65 months for drug offenses

The fact is that corporate crooks have something that poor crooks lack, namely, political clout

[violatedsmurf80]

extrapolate this to corporate crooks

Corporate crooks? Congress is a hypocrite, you ever wonder why members of congress net-worth are in the millions, check this out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/

I know off topic but I thought this was informative, for a conspiracy theorist to come up with more outrages claims

[pingnak]

http://xkcd.com/966/

[velkyn]

^^^ isn't that just grand ? 

I suspect that conspiracy theorists and theists track pretty closely together, one often being the other too.  Both sides want to imagine that they have some secret knowledge.   

[grant]

PS - I don't just blame bankers for our current financial collapse. The blame goes around to everybody. We (meaning govt., bankers, securities traders, mgt. companies, certain individuals) all had a part to play in this mess.

Wow, you really have got your shit together on this.

Which one of "we" are you? Please don't disappoint me with you're being a "certain individual", then you'd need to give me a hint so I could recognise who I'm so lucky to be talking to. I just love when the big guys come on this site and take credit for the big stuff, just sorta have a bit of a chin wag about the BIG issues, educate us plebs... and being part of the American financial crisis is right up there!

[ungod]

Yet another conspiracy is the cover up of what really happened at Chernobyl. The real story occasionally pops up on the Web, but is quickly silenced. Still, it is known amongst the scientific community.
The Vatican had an ever growing problem - left over Holy Water. They couldn't just flush it down the drain, that would be sacrilege, and risk angering God. So, a deal was struck with the Devil - the Soviets, desperate for power, theorized using Holy Water as the coolant in a reactor would increase it's power output substantially.
And so, tank cars of the precious fluid were shipped to Chernobyl, and replaced the coolant in one of the Units. The first test run was early one morning, and the rest is history.
However, the knowledge gained was not wasted. Canada's reactors used heavy water. All of their heavy water plants have been shut down, because they have been able to successfully substitute Holy water, saving money and solving the Vatican's problem.
Because of God's triune nature, the Holy Water does result in increased tritium in the reactors, but apparently is not problematic.