starbug1 Posted March 2, 2006 Author Posted March 2, 2006 At the risk of belaboring a point laid out by others in a less than civil way... Starbug1' date=' understand that the evidence you've linked to amounts to judgements reached by persons of dubious authority. Since you're not an expert, and few if any people who've posted here (including yourself) have a background in basic continuum mechanics, let alone specific background in aerospace engineering, there are few people here (once again, including yourself) in a position to evaluate these claims either way. [/quote'] The whole point of my bringing up this was to convey my opinion, and maybe hope to find someone that agreed with me, either from my arguments or from personal knowledge, expertise, and research of their own. And as you see not one person shared my opinion. I'm not an expert, given. However, I do have some position to evaluate the claims I did. Most of which I was just paraphrasing or giving to you how I saw them. In no way was I trying to be the expert, and the evaluation was done by others for the most part. The point I think others are trying to make is that absent that sort of expertise and trust in the authority of the judgements you've posted, there may be reason for you to remain skeptical of these 9/11 conspiracy theories. I remain open to contructive debate. As you said there are no experts here, therefore no claims are truthworthy or available for official evaluation, so this doesn't really work. The authority behind the judgements i made was...there's no authority needed! In conclusion, there is just as much reason for me to be skeptical as the other side is, for the conspiracy theories are not so vague and belittled everywhere as to automatically deem them absent of anything worth mentioning because they lack expertise or authority. Valid data has been produced for both sides of the argument, and the skeptics are not all for the conspiracy theories; they, if I may remind you, exist on both sides. Just because I have no expert voice on the subject, that doesn't mean I should back off and say "you know, after reading what I wrote, there may be reason for me to remain skeptical about this because my evidence is dubious, which is not at all true." Rather, maybe you think I should just back off because who's going to listen to a 17-year old kid anyway?
crims Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Here's a very simple argument that shows 9/11 was a coverup: First, look at the times: 9:59 AM - South Tower collapses. 10:28 AM - North Tower collapses. 5:30 PM - WTC7 collapses. Now try to find the cause for WTC7's collapse: No planes crashed into WTC7. WTC7 collapsed 7 hours after the towers. So a plane could not be the cause. WTC7 had beams and columns of steel. Steel loses integrity at > 1000*C. Aviation fuel burns at < 500*C. So a fire could not be the cause. Conclusions: Cause was not fire, and not a plane. That means WTC7 collapsed by other means. That's enough evidence to: 1.) Disprove the official theory 2.) Justify a new investigation
pink_trike Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Thought I'd add this to the soup: http://www.911proof.com/ Just for the record...I have no opinion. I am resting comfortably in don't-know mind.
crims Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Just for the record...I have no opinion. I am resting comfortably in don't-know mind. Pft... pusssy!
bascule Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Here's a very simple argument that shows 9/11 was a coverup Here's a very simple argument that shows 9/11 wasn't a cover up. I'll take the conspiracy theorist approach of phrasing my argument in the form of questions and let the reader connect the dots: How many people would need to be involved in the conspiracy in order for it to be successful? What are the chances of not a single member of a group that large leaking the secret to the press Deep Throat style? If 9/11 is a conspiracy how are they keeping it a secret? Bush couldn't even keep the domestic spying program a secret.
crims Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 How many people would need to be involved in the conspiracy in order for it to be successful? Why... why would they say anything, especially if they're getting rich off of it. At this point, going public for any of them is a stupid idea because: a.) They already committed crimes, which would put them in jail or worse b.) They would cross the paths of people who already murdered thousands Like, Silverstein for example: July 24, 2001 - Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned WTC7, signed a $3.2-billion 99-year lease on the entire WTC complex - 6 weeks before 9/11. Included in the lease was a $3.5-billion insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism. Sept 6, 2001 - 3150 put-options are put on United Airlines stock. (Put-option is a bet that a stock will fall.) That day, put options were more than 4 times the daily average. Sept 7, 2001 - 27294 put-options are put on Boeing stock. That's more than 5 times the daily average. Sept 10, 2001 - 4516 put-options are put on American Airlines stock. Almost 11 times the daily average. Before WTC7 collapsed, SEC used it to house 3000 to 4000 files related to numerous Wall Street investigations. What are the chances of not a single member of a group that large leaking the secret to the press Deep Throat style? What about Reynolds? He was on Bush's team during his 1st term. Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6470 http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm And these other very credible people: Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Storyhttp://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=99739 Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm It's very rare that someone from the government itself voices conspiracy theories... how much more obvious does it have to be? If 9/11 is a conspiracy how are they keeping it a secret? Bush couldn't even keep the domestic spying program a secret. They're not, basically. They realized a lot of people would be on to them, so they use W Bush as a frontman to dismiss any accusations of plotting. But W Bush is part of a big, powerful family. For example, Marvin Bush owns Securacom (Stratesec), which was in charge of security for WTC during 9/11. The company was sold to their friends at the Kuwait-American Corporation in 2000. But that's not much... you could find so much more dirt about them on the web.
crims Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 By the way, CNN Quickvote poll as of 3/25/06 Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks? Yes - 84% - 40700 votes No - 16% - 7681 votes Total: 48,381 votes http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306pollshows.htm
ecoli Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 That's probably a biased sample, crims. I bet people who believe the conspiracy theory vote on the poles, while more intellegent folk just ignore them.
crims Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 ...umm... this conspiracy theory is the first to have so much support from scientists, engineers, politicians, celebrities, and so many other credible people. I doubt you can use the "only dumb people believe it" argument. I mean, one of the people FROM BUSH'S OWN TEAM says 9/11 was a coverup. If we have people from the government saying there's a conspiracy... well, if there's ever been a conspiracy theory to believe, it's this one.
ecoli Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 ...umm... this conspiracy theory is the first to have so much support from scientists, engineers, politicians, celebrities, and so many other credible people. well, if they believe this conspiracy theory, I have to seriously question they're credibility... besides, just because somebody is a scientist, doesn't give them any authority on 9/11. There are plenty of engineers and scientists on both sides of the fence. I doubt you can use the "only dumb people believe it" argument. I wasn't using that as an argument. I mean, one of the people FROM BUSH'S OWN TEAM says 9/11 was a coverup. If we have people from the government saying there's a conspiracy... That means virtually nothing. well, if there's ever been a conspiracy theory to believe, it's this one. I don't see how... considering all major points of the conpirasy were disproven on snopes.com... it's merely a convenient one to believe... Why do people like blaming the gov't for their own hardships?
crims Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I don't see how... considering all major points of the conpirasy were disproven on snopes.com... I did a search on snopes.com for '9/11'.... It's full of trash that has nothing to do with serious 9/11 conspiracy theories. The only serious argument amounts to "these are lies, trust us": Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Suuuure... and we're supposed to believe that because...? it's merely a convenient one to believe... Why do people like blaming the gov't for their own hardships? What do you mean FOR THEIR OWN HARDSHIPS? You mean it was the peoples own fault they died in 9/11? As for blaming the government itself, that's too simplistic. It's not the government itself - it's individuals who were IN the government. The country has been hijacked by criminals who have robbed the people, murdered their own countrymen, sent the country's children to die in some foresaken war, and given America the image of a villain. The reason I believe it was a coverup is because to prove the official story the Laws of Physics would have to be violated.
ashennell Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 First' date=' look at the times: 9:59 AM - South Tower collapses. 10:28 AM - North Tower collapses. 5:30 PM - WTC7 collapses. Now try to find the cause for WTC7's collapse: No planes crashed into WTC7. WTC7 collapsed 7 hours after the towers. So a plane could not be the cause. WTC7 had beams and columns of steel. Steel loses integrity at > 1000*C. Aviation fuel burns at < 500*C. So a fire could not be the cause. [/quote'] Nonsense. All of the evidence for conspiracies surrond 9/11 has been debunked at one place or another. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
The Peon Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Ummm the poll asks if you believe that a coverup existed, not if you believed the government was behind the attacks. Just what are you trying to prove with that poll? It merely shows that the majority of the pollers think the government covered up things about 9-11. Reread the wording sheesh. And if it was a government conspiracy, why havn't they detonated a dirty bomb and blamed it on Iranian terrorists? Since you like strawmen ill throw some of my own out. Oh let me guess, all the mass media frenzy about Iran is all made up by the Bush administration? No wait, even better, the US is SECRETELY supplying Iran with Nuclear weapons so they can blame it on Iran after they nuke LA or NYC? This sort of conspiracy garbage is pandered to the weak minded and uber paranoid. Can't you for once consider the fact that perhaps some cultures hate the US so much they would actually attack it? Do you think everyone just cowers in fear of the US? What better organization to launch an attack on the US than one which knows no borders and owes no allegiance other than to an imaginary friend? Bleh this makes me so upset I had to log in at my job to post. Now im gonna get in trouble.
JustStuit Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I did a search on snopes.com for '9/11'.... It's full of trash that has nothing to do with serious 9/11 conspiracy theories. The only serious argument amounts to "these are lies' date=' trust us": Suuuure... and we're supposed to believe that because...? What do you mean FOR THEIR OWN HARDSHIPS? You mean it was the peoples own fault they died in 9/11? As for blaming the government itself, that's too simplistic. It's not the government itself - it's individuals who were IN the government. The country has been hijacked by criminals who have robbed the people, murdered their own countrymen, sent the country's children to die in some foresaken war, and given America the image of a villain. The reason I believe it was a coverup is because to prove the official story the Laws of Physics would have to be violated.[/quote'] You seem to be the one believing anything. Why does it have to be a conspiracy? You're grasping at straws for any of those to be reasons it was a conspiracy.
ecoli Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Exactly... people want there to have been a gov't conspiracy. I attribute this to Hollywood.
JustStuit Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I agree. I also blame too much free time. They could be volunteering or something if they want to make the country better.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The collapse of WTC 7 is the subject of a current investigation, and I suggest you do not make conclusions before that study produces results.
JustStuit Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The collapse of WTC 7 is the subject of a current investigation, and I suggest you do not make conclusions before that study produces results. I thought they already did an investigation?
ashennell Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The collapse of WTC 7 is the subject of a current investigation, and I suggest you do not make conclusions before that study produces results. Is anyone seriously expecting the outcome of the investigation to indicate that WTC7 was deliberately demolished as part of a secret goverment plot?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 No, but at least you'll have some explanation to criticize.
ashennell Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 No, but at least you'll have some explanation to criticize. Why would I want to criticize it? I am confused, maybe a misunderstanding. Who was your initial suggestion aimed at?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 crims. I was trying to say that he should wait for the investigation to be completed to draw his conclusions. There is more evidence to be seen.
ashennell Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 crims. I was trying to say that he should wait for the investigation to be completed to draw his conclusions. There is more evidence to be seen. Ok, I agree. Well, he should wait for the investigation before he follows blindly the conclusion drawn by the conspiracy nuts.
bascule Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 People like crims make me want to gouge my eyes out. I look at Charlie Sheen about the same way I look at Steven Segal when he claimed that HIV was created by the government as a way of combatting gays and blacks.
Recommended Posts