9/11 was a conspiracy?

[acidca]

One of my friends is constantly running his mouth about how 9/11 was a coup d'etat designed by "the government" and is really obsessed with conspiracy theories. Usually I just ignore him and let him convince my idiot gullible buddies that the evil republicans designed the whole thing, but he is becoming frighteningly successful.

He rambles on about heresay and circumstantial evidence which "proves" his [censored] theories. For example he supposedly interviewed the last person to leave the towers and survive, who told him he "heard loud noises in the basement" before the first plane hit (implying that there were explosives planted there). He also says that Cheney insisted the air force or something stand down as the plane was about to hit the pentagon, etc. He has a ton of "evidence" to support his claims.

So when I get past my breaking point and start arguing with him, I eventually just give up and end up making him look right because I haven't spent 500 hours on conspiracy websites soaking up [censored].

My guess is that plenty of the people on this forum have the knowledge it would take to shut this guy down badly. Pretend I'm him and just made a long-winded post. Shut me down. Feel free to quote conspiracy websites and tell me what's idiotic about them. Convince me that there is no [censored] conspiracy. I will point my friends who buy into this BS towards this thread.

All efforts appreciated,
acidca

edit: I've found some pretty good stuff now so I'm ok

[Phil153]

Here's the basic argument against this stuff:

It could have been a conspiracy. It's possible. However:

1. There are people in the world who want to do this. Quite a few of them actually. And they've done it before. Unless he believes that the 1993 WTC bombings were a conspiracy too? And the London underground...and the madrid bombings...and Bali...and the US embassy bombings around the world.

2. Plane security has always been a joke simply because of cost and the market value of passenger convenience. In many ways, even after the crackdowns, it still is. It was entirely possible for a person with the desire and preparation to do exactly what the hijackers did

3. So we have possibility, technical capability and motive on the part of various groups around the world. In addition, they have claimed responsibility - why would they do that when a conspiracy would hurt the US even more? Al Qaeda is now hunted, and many of their top men have been killed. Others are in Guantanamo Bay. So it's hard to believe their organization is complicit.

4. Clinton thought Al Qaeda was a serious threat who meant to do the US harm. Unless of course, we have a bipartisan conspiracy...

Look at the above and put and the conspiracy theories in their proper perspective.

[acidca]

good stuff phil

[kniper]

quickly, the best way to kinda get this guy is on his evidence. of course he is gonna prove you wrong if he cites like every piece of conspiracy bs. The problem is is that the guy is throwing like 50 pieces of evidence in your face, somewhat overwhelming. Just stick to one key piece of evidence. Have him show you REAL documents. Not some [censored] on a conspiracy website or something. Not some hearsay. Show you something real that means something. Like an official document or a report from a respected journalist.

And btw, hearing noises in the basement of the wtc doesn't mean anything. Im sure the rest of his evidence is similar hearsay. Just tell him there is a reason courts don't allow hearsay.

For example, I remember reading that a bunch of "scholars for 9/11 truth" had analyzed the fallout from the buildings and concluded that it was impossible for it to occur without explosives inside the buildings. Just reply, look, these guys are 1) probably bozos, and 2) if they aren't how many fallouts from buildings have they examined from planes? Applying old principles doesn't apply in new ones, these guys might be self-described experts but they dont know everything. there are so many elements that go into those things that anyone says that they know exactly for sure the result of a plane flying into a building is FOS.

So yeah, you gotta attack facts, and keep it simple by sticking to one if you can.

[acidca]

[ QUOTE ]
quickly, the best way to kinda get this guy is on his evidence. of course he is gonna prove you wrong if he cites like every piece of conspiracy bs. The problem is is that the guy is throwing like 50 pieces of evidence in your face, somewhat overwhelming. Just stick to one key piece of evidence. Have him show you REAL documents. Not some [censored] on a conspiracy website or something. Not some hearsay. Show you something real that means something. Like an official document or a report from a respected journalist.

And btw, hearing noises in the basement of the wtc doesn't mean anything. Im sure the rest of his evidence is similar hearsay. Just tell him there is a reason courts don't allow hearsay.

For example, I remember reading that a bunch of "scholars for 9/11 truth" had analyzed the fallout from the buildings and concluded that it was impossible for it to occur without explosives inside the buildings. Just reply, look, these guys are 1) probably bozos, and 2) if they aren't how many fallouts from buildings have they examined from planes? Applying old principles doesn't apply in new ones, these guys might be self-described experts but they dont know everything. there are so many elements that go into those things that anyone says that they know exactly for sure the result of a plane flying into a building is FOS.

So yeah, you gotta attack facts, and keep it simple by sticking to one if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

We just had a major showdown and basically this is what I did. I asked him to back up any major point he made with some kind of evidence and everything he presented to me was of course easily refutable. For example he said it was clear that the towers had been destroyed by preset explosives. Of of the pieces of evidence he used to support this was that debris was found so far from the towers, including documents and such that "should have been trapped in the towers." Obviously their distance from the towers proved they were ejected by some sort of explosion from inside.

I won't even bother you guys with my side of the argument because his is so glaringly idiotic.

[superleeds]

You missed the most obvious, to have pulled something like 9/11 off 'they' would have had to be competent. Although having said that, 'they' would have thought of this and put in 'mistakes' as a smokescreen. My God, 'they' can make hurricanes too.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
You missed the most obvious, to have pulled something like 9/11 off 'they' would have had to be competent. Although having said that, 'they' would have thought of this and put in 'mistakes' as a smokescreen. My God, 'they' can make hurricanes too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you research the SL bailout and how competent they were there in stealing your money. This whole new current "subprime" mortgage thing is just the SL bailout all over again, get ready to get heldup again.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
You missed the most obvious, to have pulled something like 9/11 off 'they' would have had to be competent. Although having said that, 'they' would have thought of this and put in 'mistakes' as a smokescreen. My God, 'they' can make hurricanes too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're theory is flawed because they would have known you'd know they'd put mistakes in, so they would've conducted the perfect crime. The only way it could work is if they knew you'd know they knew.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my friends is constantly running his mouth about how 9/11 was a coup d'etat designed by "the government" and is really obsessed with conspiracy theories. Usually I just ignore him and let him convince my idiot gullible buddies that the evil republicans designed the whole thing, but he is becoming frighteningly successful.

He rambles on about heresay and circumstantial evidence which "proves" his [censored] theories. For example he supposedly interviewed the last person to leave the towers and survive, who told him he "heard loud noises in the basement" before the first plane hit (implying that there were explosives planted there). He also says that Cheney insisted the air force or something stand down as the plane was about to hit the pentagon, etc. He has a ton of "evidence" to support his claims.

So when I get past my breaking point and start arguing with him, I eventually just give up and end up making him look right because I haven't spent 500 hours on conspiracy websites soaking up [censored].

My guess is that plenty of the people on this forum have the knowledge it would take to shut this guy down badly. Pretend I'm him and just made a long-winded post. Shut me down. Feel free to quote conspiracy websites and tell me what's idiotic about them. Convince me that there is no [censored] conspiracy. I will point my friends who buy into this BS towards this thread.

All efforts appreciated,
acidca

edit: I've found some pretty good stuff now so I'm ok

[/ QUOTE ]

How bout you and your lack of evidence just look at the topic objectively? That might be a start.

Evidence is evidence; just cuz the point your friend is making implicates the US government in the worst way, doesn't mean it deserves quotation marks.

Also, there's an entire thread going on right now about this topic, keep the 9/11 stuff in it.

[boracay]

"Beware those that wholly believe in Biblical revelations,
claim to be doing the work of God and also have the big
red button to cause said annihilation while breaking at
least half of the ten commandments."
-- netctr.com

"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)