9/11 conspiracies. Really, they still exist?

[Dr Ampersand]

*GASP* *PANT* Sorry that I'm late Ladies and Gent's. I present to you a piece of irrefutable evidence in the form of this here

OBJECTION!

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

And because it's a conspiracy spoof, I ask you to also take a look at this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI .

A bit more on topic though I really don't think there is any conspiracy since real planes would work better than bombs.

 

[Darth Pope]

Stupidity will never die.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_p2.html


And here's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

You sir just got bumped up to pure essence of awesome in my book for posting this.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Does it really matter what you believe(I'm saying this to anyone)? Weather or not you think it was(n't) a conspiracy, it won't make a difference, [HEADING=1]IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED![/HEADING]

I couldn't have said it better myself. It was 8 years ago, so whether it was terrorists or some conspiracy, either the terrorists or the conspirators must have gotten what they wanted out of it by now.

 

[Phyroxis]

Just because there are some nutjobs out there doesn't mean everyone with an argument against the popular opinion is crazy.

There are plenty of top-notch scientists who have made testimonials on either side of the discussion. Just because the government tells you it was terrorists doesn't mean you should blindly follow them. They may be right, but they can be right with evidence as opposed to just on their word.



Additionally.. Do you really want to take the government's word on it? Especially when they are now, and actually have, passed rights-infringing legislation like the Patriot act?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Just because there are some nutjobs out there doesn't mean everyone with an argument against the popular opinion is crazy.

No, but in this particular conspiracy, it's the nutjobs who are going against popular opinion.

There are plenty of top-notch scientists who have made testimonials on either side of the discussion. Just because the government tells you it was terrorists doesn't mean you should blindly follow them. They may be right, but they can be right with evidence as opposed to just on their word.

No. Seriously, there aren't. This isn't global warming; there's actually unanimous opinion among top-notch scientists on what caused this.

Additionally.. Do you really want to take the government's word on it? Especially when they are now, and actually have, passed rights-infringing legislation like the Patriot act?

You're right! Why should we trust the government when it says something? Buncha pricks.

Luckily, I'll just listen to the thousands of non-governmental experts on the subject who say the conspiracy is a load of rubbish.

 

[captainwillies]

Regarding the steel. It didn't melt, it just was heated to the point where the steel beams could bend enough, thus all the weight it supported came crashing down.

there are still the interview's with the firemen were they clearly state that there were "pool's of liquified steel".

makes me wonder if anyone has seen Zeitgeist on this site?

Is it possible they could have mistaken the steel for metal from the plane? Plus the force of a plane that size, ramming those towers going at least 200mph probably knocked some of those steal beams down too.

Commercial Airplanes are mostly built with aluminum alloys. also if only some of the beams came out why did the "entire" building fall.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924#

skip to 43:15

 

[captainwillies]

no I haven't seen zeitgeist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#

skip to 43:15

watch it Alllllllll the way through.

Watched it, thought it was crap. Dramatic music is no substitute for evidence.

lol thats why you look past the dramatic music at all the interviews with firemen who were there. the interview with people who speak about NORAD. and of course the people who comment on the fact that a whole plane was vapourised on impact (which is very likely) but the fact that they still found paper(?)passports of the passengers who just happened to be the hijackers(not very likely).

as i said before that still doesn't mean its a goverment consipracy its just that normal people usually see things in ether black or white hence "ITS A CONSPIRACY YOU NAZI SHEEPLE" and "QUIT TALKING YOU STUPID HIPPY". were surely there can be middle ground like say the goverment had pre-knowledge of the attack but failed to do anything because they suck (not surprising since thats when bush was still prez) and to cover up their massive failure planted passports to make it look less suspicious.

of course that still doesn't explain "everything" but like i said there is surely a logical "middle ground"

 

[captainwillies]

i really hope thats a thick layer of sarcasm.

Oh, why would I act really patriotic so I can do some sarcastic humor? That makes no sense.

your name is "no more sanity"

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

No,I don't really get into conspiracies.

 

[Crystalgate]

Commercial Airplanes are mostly built with aluminum alloys. also if only some of the beams came out why did the "entire" building fall.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924#

skip to 43:15

How soft a material is does not affect it's kinetic energy. If an object has more kinetic energy than a wall can absorb, the wall will break no matter how soft the incoming object is.

As for how the entire building could fall with only some beams breaking, imagine ten men holding up a heavy object. Let's say eight of them are needed to support the weight of the object. If four of them stumble or for some other reason cannot hold up the object anymore, the object will fall. This will most likely cause the other men to fall as well since a heavy object is weighting them down. The likely result is that the object and all men fall.

 

[Cubilone]

[

Before I go lets debunk this post point by point real quick

Some facts for us to ponder:

1. The beams sticking out of the rubble featured clean, diagonal cuts.


2. The fuel fire was so hot that it managed to melt the steel... Yet somehow the terrorists' papers/passports managed to survive.

3. Some of the terrorists reported in the planes and still featuring dead in the official investigations were later found alive.

4. Building 7 fell freely. A shockwave, tremor or debris CANNOT create such a simultaneous collapse.

5. Bin Laden has still not been found. Yet he's been able to send all his tapes and messages for years.

6. The World Trade Center buildings were designed, as most skyscrapers, to be able to withstand an airplane crash. Two direct hits with two free-falls is certainly a mystery.

1. Thats a clean cut? REALLY? Did you even look at the picture you posted. That thing is jagged and very far from a "clean" cut. Not to mention that a diagonal cut on that beam proves exactly what? Oh it proves nothing, thats right.

2. The fuel didn't melt steel, nor did anyone in the gov't claim the steel in the building melted. In fact the claim by loose change is that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The fire weakned the steel structure which caused it's collapse. It didn't have to melt anything. As far as the passports/papers go, fires are unpredictable. Ever seen a house fire? Just because the building was on fire doesn't mean every single thing in the buildings were charred. Plenty of regular office papers from both buildings survived intact as well. Papers being there doesn't prove anything.

3. What your talking about here is from loose change. They found some guy who just so happens to have the same name as one of the terrorist and try to say "Look see the guy is alive! it's all a lie!". Alas people sometimes have the same names. In my highschool alone there were two kids with my same first and last name. All the terrorists caught on aiport security cameras boarded the planes and are now dead, period.

4. Shockwave, tremor, or debris cannot cause a building to collapse? What do you live in the world of Jenga physics like the other guy I quoted? How do you explain buildings collapsing days after a minor earthquake has weakened their structures? What about building demolitions where debris from the demo hits buildings in the surrounding area and weakens them extensively? Hell what about buildings that fall for no reason other then their original supports had flaws? Buildings are mroe fragile then what people assume. A relatively tiny error can comprimise a buildings structuaral integrity. Both towers falling provided enough shaking to classify as a very minor earthquake, that combined with the tons of debris/dust that fell on the surrounding buildings led to building 7 collapsing.

5. How does this prove the US gov't somehow planned the attacks? We can barely track down high profile criminals in our own country and its somehow seems strange to you that we can find someone who hides out in caves and underground bunkers?

6. Uh no. "Withstanding a 747 airplane hitting our building" was definitely not on the minds of the people who built the towers. (Edit: Smaller planes were thought of but nothing that size) Sky Scrapers in the NE are built primarily to withstand high winds and the shaking that comes from being so damn tall. Anyways the point is irrelavant anyway because it wasn't the crashes that brought down the towers. It was the fire burning for hours that weakened the metal supports and comprimised the buildings structuaral integrity that brought them down. If we had been able to put out the fires after the planes crashed both buildings would still be standing.

1. Not a clean cut? Have you ever seen a line? What's more, for controlled explosions, they wrap the columns with wire-explosives that cut the column in that way. Gravity does the rest. So, is it a coinsidence that the columns at WTC appear to have that particular cut?

2. So your government claimed that that the steel "softened". Right. So why weren't the buildings left half-standing? How do you explain that the buildings free-fell? If the structured have just "softened" there would be definitely something left standing. And don't tell me that the materials from top floors were too much for the lower levels to stand. If the fall was vertical then the columns at the lower levels would be solid enough to endure the pressure.

3. There were photos of them too! These people saw their faces on the news and read that they were supposedly terrorists, and dead terrorists too! How bout that? And how do you feel that your government made not one, not two but seventeen(!) mistaken claims of that kind?

4. You realise here that we don't talk about old, barely standing buildings right? You realize that these buildings were build to sustain major earthquakes.

5.Yeah..and Bin Laden's face keeps changing and changing with every tape he sends. And you still think there is one, THE Bin Laden....

6. Wow! So if a skyscraper of this size and importance catches fire it... collapses? And don't tell me that plane fuels burn in a super high temperature. Fuels burn in a temperature of 300 C. Guess what? Even cast iron melts at 1300, imagine steel! Do you still believe that the columns... softened?

7. And what's more, tell me just this. What do 9/11 scepticists have to gain by going around, claiming your government feeds you lies? Fame on the internet? Selling a book? Big deal!! Now, what's the profit of your government making everyone believe that there is terrorism, bad middle east people with weapons of mass destruction and so on? Nothing..except feeding the war industry and all this oil in the Middle East... Some billions of billlions of billions of dollars that is...

 

[Kriptonite]

Does it really matter what you believe(I'm saying this to anyone)? Weather or not you think it was(n't) a conspiracy, it won't make a difference, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

I couldn't have said it better myself. It was 8 years ago, so whether it was terrorists or some conspiracy, either the terrorists or the conspirators must have gotten what they wanted out of it by now.

Thank you! Finally a level headed person tackling this subject. One that should no longer be a discussion.

 

[NeutralDrow]

of course that still doesn't explain "everything" but like i said there is surely a logical "middle ground"

Logically, there is no middle ground. This is a debate over a particular event, not a value judgment.

 

[Phyroxis]

Just because there are some nutjobs out there doesn't mean everyone with an argument against the popular opinion is crazy.

No, but in this particular conspiracy, it's the nutjobs who are going against popular opinion.

There are plenty of top-notch scientists who have made testimonials on either side of the discussion. Just because the government tells you it was terrorists doesn't mean you should blindly follow them. They may be right, but they can be right with evidence as opposed to just on their word.

No. Seriously, there aren't. This isn't global warming; there's actually unanimous opinion among top-notch scientists on what caused this.

Additionally.. Do you really want to take the government's word on it? Especially when they are now, and actually have, passed rights-infringing legislation like the Patriot act?

You're right! Why should we trust the government when it says something? Buncha pricks.

Luckily, I'll just listen to the thousands of non-governmental experts on the subject who say the conspiracy is a load of rubbish.

So, everyone is in agreement? Have you done any research into the studies of 9/11? There are plenty of scientists calling foul play.

While I am still undecided overall (any my opinion is largely irrelevant to begin with), I certainly see evidence being thrown around by both sides. By no means does this seem to be a unanimous "its over, terrorists did it" situation.

I think the main thing that frightens me the most is the vehement cries of "don't look anymore! Obviously it was terrorists."

Really? We're going to just stop investigating? Analyzing evidence? For a society built on the scientific method and free speech; we're that quick to shut down legitimate investigation?

There's some pretty compelling stuff released by Physicist Steven Jones that has me a bit intrigued. And yet some people now slams him as a conspiracy theorist simply because he opposes the common view, despite the fact he makes no wild claims and continues to operate step-by-step logically. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't make any claims either way, just presents evidence.

As I said, why are we so quick to call "conspiracy theorist!" and dismiss everyone, particularly when there should be legitimate inquiry? Especially when our rights are at stake? If I'm going to start giving up my freedoms for perceived security, I want to know theres a true threat that isn't my own government.

Hell, let the terrorists come. I don't need the government tapping phone lines or monitoring anything. If the terrorists come, fine, we're still bigger! I'm not working or going to school near any high-priority targets, nor am I doing anything illegal, why should I give up my freedom because the government is messing around where it shouldn't be?

This is getting wall-y and ranty, so I'll wrap it up. I'm just irritated. I do not like the idea of Big Brother coming to fruition, justified on a sketchy internal-inquiry with no objective review.

 

[NeutralDrow]

7. And what's more, tell me just this. What do 9/11 scepticists have to gain by going around, claiming your government feeds you lies? Fame on the internet? Selling a book? Big deal!!

Considering how many DVDs those idiots sold, it was, in fact, a big deal.

 

[firedfns13]

I like how people simultaneously believe that George W Bush has the IQ of a rock and that he's able to somehow get the government to secretly plan a terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon, killing scores of American citizens, in order to have a reason to attack Afghanistan.

-America has never needed a reason to bomb, attack, or invade another country. In fact, it happens very frequently. IE: Granada, Panama, Kosovo, etc.

-What about all those leaks of government secrets. With something of this magnitude, someone would have leaked it. Unless America is ruled by Ghengis Khan, and killed those planners, buried them, killed the buriers, killed the people that buried them, etc...

 

[NeutralDrow]

Just because there are some nutjobs out there doesn't mean everyone with an argument against the popular opinion is crazy.

No, but in this particular conspiracy, it's the nutjobs who are going against popular opinion.

There are plenty of top-notch scientists who have made testimonials on either side of the discussion. Just because the government tells you it was terrorists doesn't mean you should blindly follow them. They may be right, but they can be right with evidence as opposed to just on their word.

No. Seriously, there aren't. This isn't global warming; there's actually unanimous opinion among top-notch scientists on what caused this.

Additionally.. Do you really want to take the government's word on it? Especially when they are now, and actually have, passed rights-infringing legislation like the Patriot act?

You're right! Why should we trust the government when it says something? Buncha pricks.

Luckily, I'll just listen to the thousands of non-governmental experts on the subject who say the conspiracy is a load of rubbish.

So, everyone is in agreement? Have you done any research into the studies of 9/11? There are plenty of scientists calling foul play.

Show me. Please. And no botanists.

While I am still undecided overall (any my opinion is largely irrelevant to begin with), I certainly see evidence being thrown around by both sides. By no means does this seem to be a unanimous "its over, terrorists did it" situation.

I think the main thing that frightens me the most is the vehement cries of "don't look anymore! Obviously it was terrorists."

Really? We're going to just stop investigating? Analyzing evidence? For a society built on the scientific method and free speech; we're that quick to shut down legitimate investigation?

No. We're saying the legitimate investigation has happened many times over, and there's no point in continuing to rehash it, because the only people who haven't been convinced are the people who never will be.

There's some pretty compelling stuff released by Physicist Steven Jones that has me a bit intrigued. And yet some people now slams him as a conspiracy theorist simply because he opposes the common view, despite the fact he makes no wild claims and continues to operate step-by-step logically. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't make any claims either way, just presents evidence.

Link, out of curiosity?

As I said, why are we so quick to call "conspiracy theorist!" and dismiss everyone, particularly when there should be legitimate inquiry? Especially when our rights are at stake? If I'm going to start giving up my freedoms for perceived security, I want to know theres a true threat that isn't my own government.

Hell, let the terrorists come. I don't need the government tapping phone lines or monitoring anything. If the terrorists come, fine, we're still bigger! I'm not working or going to school near any high-priority targets, nor am I doing anything illegal, why should I give up my freedom because the government is messing around where it shouldn't be?

Isn't paranoia fun?

This is getting wall-y and ranty, so I'll wrap it up. I'm just irritated. I do not like the idea of Big Brother coming to fruition, justified on a sketchy internal-inquiry with no objective review.

...yeah, I've definitely been wasting my time and energy talking.

 

[Cubilone]

I like how people simultaneously believe that George W Bush has the IQ of a rock and that he's able to somehow get the government to secretly plan a terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon, killing scores of American citizens, in order to have a reason to attack Afghanistan.

-America has never needed a reason to bomb, attack, or invade another country. In fact, it happens very frequently. IE: Granada, Panama, Kosovo, etc.

-What about all those leaks of government secrets. With something of this magnitude, someone would have leaked it. Unless America is ruled by Ghengis Khan, and killed those planners, buried them, killed the buriers, killed the people that buried them, etc...

As is very often said, a government secret is a government secret. You know, confidential? There are tons of stuff we don't know about that some, a handful of people maybe, know.

By the way, don't be under the silly impression that a president, or indeed, any leader has real power. In today's modern capitalist world, corporations have the real power. Bush was just a puppet.

Just because there are some nutjobs out there doesn't mean everyone with an argument against the popular opinion is crazy.

No, but in this particular conspiracy, it's the nutjobs who are going against popular opinion.

There are plenty of top-notch scientists who have made testimonials on either side of the discussion. Just because the government tells you it was terrorists doesn't mean you should blindly follow them. They may be right, but they can be right with evidence as opposed to just on their word.

No. Seriously, there aren't. This isn't global warming; there's actually unanimous opinion among top-notch scientists on what caused this.

Additionally.. Do you really want to take the government's word on it? Especially when they are now, and actually have, passed rights-infringing legislation like the Patriot act?

You're right! Why should we trust the government when it says something? Buncha pricks.

Luckily, I'll just listen to the thousands of non-governmental experts on the subject who say the conspiracy is a load of rubbish.

So, everyone is in agreement? Have you done any research into the studies of 9/11? There are plenty of scientists calling foul play.

While I am still undecided overall (any my opinion is largely irrelevant to begin with), I certainly see evidence being thrown around by both sides. By no means does this seem to be a unanimous "its over, terrorists did it" situation.

I think the main thing that frightens me the most is the vehement cries of "don't look anymore! Obviously it was terrorists."

Really? We're going to just stop investigating? Analyzing evidence? For a society built on the scientific method and free speech; we're that quick to shut down legitimate investigation?

There's some pretty compelling stuff released by Physicist Steven Jones that has me a bit intrigued. And yet some people now slams him as a conspiracy theorist simply because he opposes the common view, despite the fact he makes no wild claims and continues to operate step-by-step logically. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't make any claims either way, just presents evidence.

As I said, why are we so quick to call "conspiracy theorist!" and dismiss everyone, particularly when there should be legitimate inquiry? Especially when our rights are at stake? If I'm going to start giving up my freedoms for perceived security, I want to know theres a true threat that isn't my own government.

Hell, let the terrorists come. I don't need the government tapping phone lines or monitoring anything. If the terrorists come, fine, we're still bigger! I'm not working or going to school near any high-priority targets, nor am I doing anything illegal, why should I give up my freedom because the government is messing around where it shouldn't be?

This is getting wall-y and ranty, so I'll wrap it up. I'm just irritated. I do not like the idea of Big Brother coming to fruition, justified on a sketchy internal-inquiry with no objective review.

I like your style. Indeed, it's come down to a sort of witch-hunt. It's certainly not indicative of a true democratic society -- if such a society has ever existed.

I shall link it again: http://zero911movie.com/site/

It is a very interesting film that looks at things from a different point of view from Loose Change, which by the way I have not seen. I suggest you see it, no matter what you think.