Are you sick of conspiracy nuts?.....9/11

by Witness 007 220 Replies latest jw experiences

  • ProdigalSon

    PSON: He and the chief of fire department made a descision to blow up nuclear bombs? is that what you believe?

    I never said they used nukes on Building 7, I said they used nukes on the main towers because of the sheer size of them. God forbid they tipped over and hit the Fed Reserve Building.

  • bohm

    They made a decision, and then they watched it collapsed. Do you really need it spelled out any more clearly than that? What was it, magic?

    In PSONS brain there exist only two options: "Magic" and a combination of "nanothermite/nuclear bombs/bombs/high-energy-weapons/mole-people".

    Of the two he desided the later was the more rational, and drew the conclusion that everybody else must believe in magic.

  • jaguarbass
  • Hairyhegoat

    Aviation fuel will not melt steel, the "weakened by fire" point has been proven, not just in scientific models but also in real world evidence whenever there is a major fire in an office-block that does not result in a collapse.

    Large chunks of concrete would still survive. Instead, each floor was almost entirely pulverized to dust long before it hit the ground. That degree of destruction can be explained only by high-explosives.
    there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless.

    actually most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes according to FEMA, and NIST didn't find evidence of fire damage over 250C. not surprising since most of the rubble was thrown away and melted down in a few weeks. 80% of the steel was never examined.

    the fires (from the planes and office stuff alone) were only half the temp. needed to weaken the steel to failure.

    The World Trade Center Construction manager says that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 (which was the largest plane at the time) and that such an impact would to nothing to the structural integrity of the building.

    goes on to say the buildings could actually take multiple planes..

    the top floors were weakened as heat rises. the bottom floors were more sturdy and had a much greater mass. the force of gravity was pulling on the upper floors, but the lower floors were providing an equal and opposite reaction much greater than the top floors were generating. truth be told, the top floors shouldn't have fallen at all, but even if they did, they would have been destroyed before they demolished their weight, and the energy would have dissipated, just as newton's third law states.

    The fire wasn't hot enough to do the least bit of damage to the 46 verticle steel standing columns that ran through out the height of those buildings. The collapse we see is simply impossible. I said impossible as an ironworker.
    I know this for a fact. 20 years in the trade.

    Very smart men were behind these attacks. Men that use their intellect to attack your intellect. Do you know what sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory? 19 Arabs with box cutters took over 4 jets and evaded the most sophisticated defense network in the world while under the command of a guy living in a cave with a laptop and flew 2 jets into the WTC and managed to knock down 3 buildings while another jet was flown with amazing precision into the Pentagon.

    If you believe the official account of 9/11, you are a deluded half-wit.

    Bush is guilty of this crime, the American government planned this to start the war on terror in the middle east. They allowed it to happen and one day we will find out they did this to their own country .. This is very disturbing to me that the USA will kill thousands of people in order to give them a reason to start a war in Iraq.


  • strymeckirules

    we can only tell you the facts. it's up to the individual mind to enlighten itself.

    if the individual fails to choose logic over emotion, they will fail to enlighten themselves.

    i don't want to believe that there is a evil upper class society that is ruling the world, but all the evidence points otherwise.

    otherwise - the evidence of no evil upper class society would be a free ethical world that has no famine or war or greed.

    what evidence do you choose to believe? this answer shows if you are logical or emotional.

    emotional ones usually do the name calling.

  • talesin

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth
    Just data to be manipulated
    I can get you any result you like
    What’s it worth to ya?
    Because there is no wrong, there is no right
    And I sleep very well at night

    ~ from The Garden of Allah, D. Henley, S. Lynch, J. Corey, and P. Gurian


  • AGuest

    Okay, notwithstanding the fact that not one of the facts I raised were addressed (again, may you all have peace!)... and that I left out the FACT that, while "we" were apparently capable... and so able... to hunt down, find, extract, put on trial, and have Saddam Hussein executed in, what... less than a blink... but took TEN years to "find"... and kill... Bin Laden (whose body was so expeditiously and covertly exposed of that even members of Congress weren't sure... AFTER he supposedly was hiding out in PLAIN view of "friends"... the Pakistanis... who it now looks like aren't such friends, after all... but, Lordy, you couldn't have said THAT a year ago without being accused of being nuts or unduly suspicious without grounds or merit - )... I have a question about the following quote, dear Bohm (peace to you!):

    They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. (Emphasis mine.) We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. - Richard Banaciski

    So, okay, I'm trying to imaging this... looking out at WTC 7 from another building... and seeing "the whole bottom corner... " of another building... "gone." I assume that most of the building ABOVE that corner... was still intact, for a few minutes, at least. Yet, the story is that the building imploded... "from the top DOWN."

    Where, may I ask, did this "hole" in the "bottom corner" come from? Wait, before someone offers that it was the melting aluminum... I would offer that, okay, there would certainly be damage from that... but in the form of a puddle... or some other material... IN the building, perhaps even pouring out. Why, though, is "the whole bottom corner of the building... gone." Did this aluminum/water mix "melt" the corner? If it did, why did it melt only one corner? Why, also, wasn't there a mass of COOLED aluminum to show that this is in fact what occurred... once all was said and done (i.e., found during clean-up)?

    I am not trying to shoot down a particular theory - I am really trying to understand HOW... if I can see a huge gaping hole in a building across the way, such that an entire WHOLE CORNER is gone... yet, the building was hit at the TOP... and supposedly imploded downward... such a thing occurred... BEFORE the building came down.

    Now, if something "else" caused that WHOLE corner to... well, go missing... that would make sense. In light of what was previously attempted at the WTC in 1990 (1991?).

    Just sayin'... and open to any explanation(s)...

    Again, peace to you all!

    A slave of Christ,


  • shamus100

    ** yawn **

  • AGuest

    Hmmmm... monkey yawns. That the same thing as monkey shines? What about monkey bizness? Monkeying around? Monkey tails? How 'bout monkey tales? Okay... monkey chewin' tobacco on the streetcar line? Is it the same as that? Wait, I know... monkey gettin' choked. It's the same as monkey gettin' choked, isn't it?

    Peace, little primate man (pun intended)!

    SA, on her own...

  • Leolaia
    In my opinion, if you dont think there was a conspiracy, your not a thinker. and not capable of critical thinking....Ask yourself, does blissful
    ignorance serve, some purpose in your life? if so, enjoy it and dont read the conspiracy post.
    the problem rests in your inability to realize facts from fiction...the people that believe the "official government story" are terrified to think
    the conspiracy nuts could be right.

    Yeah right. That sure describes me. I have my head in the sand, afraid to read or ponder what the conspiracists say, afraid to apply my critical
    thinking skills, afraid to learn new things about 9/11. My mind is so addled by media manipulation that I have no ability to separate facts from
    fiction. My disagreement with truthers is not borne out of any understanding of the evidence and logic, it is mere blissful ignorance. Yeah, sure.

    This might come as a shock to you guys, but my critical thinking skills are just fine. And I am hardly in the dark about the details of the events and
    the claims that CTs have made over the years. It actually has been something of an interest to me. I have been following the "truth movement"
    almost from the get-go and checking up on the claims that have been made over the years. I am also interested in the events as a matter of
    history (I have about 350 GB of material on my computer of photos, audio, video, and radar and flight data recorder data). I have seen over and
    over time and again how truthers have gotten the facts wrong, and then built elaborate theories on top of worthless data. I have seen countless
    examples of ad hoc and a priori reasoning, misquoting and misrepresentation of sources, special pleading, poisoning the well, and any number of
    other fallacies. Frequently I have seen a refusal to reconsider the original hypothesis when new data comes to light; almost always the new facts
    are dismissed...."the physical evidence was faked!" "those things were planted!". I have seen again and again how conclusions are based on
    selective data with an outright dismissal of facts unfavorable to one's thesis, rather than on an impartial consideration of the evidence at hand.
    9/11 conspiracy theories rather tend to be constructed out of unrelated coincidences and anomalies (why are anomalies preferred over convergent
    lines of evidence?), yielding a convoluted conspiratorial plot that makes little to no operational sense. Some truthers don't even believe there were
    planes that crashed into the towers -- it was all holograms and explosives that made it look like there were crashes, or that all the video and photos
    have been faked by the media. And others who do believe there were planes feel that the "no-planers" are disinfo psyops working to discredit the
    truth movement -- that's right, these conspiracy theorists are themselves part of the conspiracy. You know what is the cutting edge of 9/11 truther
    research right now? I shit you not -- that the victims themselves were faked. Google "VicSim" if you want to see this for yourself. This means
    they have accused victims' families of being "in on it". I have repeatedly seen truthers accusing witnesses, bystanders, and photographers of being
    "in on it" and guilty of mass murder (such as Val McClatchey, who photographed the smoke plume of the crash of United 93, who has been
    harrassed by high-profile internet "researchers"; see

    Also I find it amusing that the consensus understanding of the events of 9/11 is always termed "the official government story", as if the fact that it
    is the generally accepted view of the events makes it inherently suspect. The matter isn't, "Well, the government says so, so it must be true." It is
    the consensus understanding because it is the one best supported by the available facts and evidence. I have yet to see an alternative explanation
    that better explains the evidence (without resort to an ad hoc dismissal of evidence), is simpler or more parsimonious, and doesn't rely critically
    upon errors of fact and dubious interpretations. The worldwide structural engineering community rejects 'controlled demolition' hypotheses of the
    WTC collapses, which would be quite peculiar if in fact the evidence is so 'obvious' even to the amateur. If it's so obvious, why isn't the
    international (i.e. beyond the purview of US governmental "influence") professional consensus that the WTC towers collapsed due to premeditated
    sabotage? Yes, I know that truther architect Richard Gage has organized AE911Truth to create the appearance of a body of professional engineers
    and architects in agreement with his peculiar views on the collapses, but his list of endorsements is in no way representative of the engineering and
    architect communities and it includes names of many who have no expertise in the relevant areas and some who do not necessarily endorse
    'controlled demolition' scenarios. A better indicator of the professional consensus is whether articles specifically on the WTC collapses published in
    trade journals in the fields of fire science and structural engineering posit sabotage instead of structural failure as a possible cause. When this
    subject came up in an earlier thread, I decided to look up every article I could find in professional journals, as well as engineering dissertations and
    monographs, that discuss potential causes of the collapses. I found about 50 of them. Many of them disagreed about various aspects of the events
    and contributing causes, some even quite critical of the NIST report (such as underestimating the possible role of inadequate and degraded
    fireproofing). Not a single one suspected sabotage.

    I rarely talk about this stuff here, mainly because it's a colossal waste of time. I try to ignore these threads when they come up, but this one is a
    little different because its more about expressing annoyance towards truther theories (in general I find pseudoscience and pseudohistory annoying),
    not refuting them. Typically I would see such threads filled with old canards and very basic factual errors, and I would feel tempted to point them
    out, but generally I feel it is pointless and far too time-consuming to do so properly (i.e. in my usual style of explaining things thoroughly and citing
    sources backing up my statements). There is just too much of a gulf in how we understand and approach the events, particularly with those
    committed to CT worldviews in general. And the 'comedian' video is totally spot-on about how frustrating it is to discuss technical aspects of 9/11
    with a convinced truther; I have seen so many times the rhetorical tactics he describes, as well as plenty others. Nor do I think they're necessarily
    nuts (though some most definitely are), or are all the same. The situation imo is quite similar to that with creationists (whose brand of
    pseudoscience has many parallels to what I see in 9/11 trutherism). Many are true believers and are biased by their worldview to regard "official"
    consensus scientific explanations of the evidence as incorrect. Some are dishonest, cherry-picking and mischaracterizing facts. Some make up
    completely dubious theories about "what really happened" -- theories which can easily be refuted by physical evidence. Many simply lack a
    familiarity with the facts and critical thinking skills, and simply accept what seems true to them, and may change their minds later when they learn
    more about the evidence and what evolution actually claims. And then there are some who are totally nuts.

Share this