9/11 was a conspiracy?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't assuming there is no conspiracy without researching it yourself just as ignorant as being a "conspiracy nut"?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy nuts to prove their hypothesis.
To pull off a successful conspiracy requires several things:
1. Perfect planning and execution.
2. Keep the group of conspirators small enough where it is less likely one will get caught and squeal on the rest.
3. Have absolute loyalty to the conspiracy.

The Washington, DC beauracracy/employees is HEAVILY democrat. There have been numerous examples of unfavorable leaks to the Bush admin coming from the CIA/FBI which are suppose to be non-partisan agencies. Take the example of secret CIA prisons. The Bush admin lets captured Al Qaeda prisoners be taken to 3rd countries where civil liberty laws are less strict and allows the CIA unfettered access to these prisoners. It did not take very long for this conspiracy to unravel..... And we are suppose to believe the Repubs engineered 911? Quite pathetic...

Then to install explosive devices in these buildings without getting notice is ridiculous. Here is the scenario.
1. Jet crashes and takes out several weight bearing supports on multiple floor. The planes hit several floors simultaineously.
2. Burning jet fuel heats remaining steel supports (heats not melts).
3. When steel is heated it loses much of its strength.
4. Remaining steel supports buckle, due to the heat, and gravity takes over.
5. Building collapses and all that is left is twisted metal, melted glass, crushed concrete, and dead bodies...

Did you notice that the 2nd tower hit was the FIRST tower to fall.
Why? Because the second plane struck a lower floor. This meant when the steel supports gave way, there was greater kinetic energy (more weight from the floors above) to come crashing down on the lower floors. But the conspiracy fools would probably claim this was part of their plan as well.....

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't assuming there is no conspiracy without researching it yourself just as ignorant as being a "conspiracy nut"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because real news stories show up in the Washington Post and on CNN. A true conspiracy would be a real news story. Therefore, if it hasn't been on CNN or the Washington Post, it's likely false. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't assuming there is no conspiracy without researching it yourself just as ignorant as being a "conspiracy nut"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because real news stories show up in the Washington Post and on CNN. A true conspiracy would be a real news story. Therefore, if it hasn't been on CNN or the Washington Post, it's likely false. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

the news and the truth are not the same thing.

"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby (Former CIA Director)

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director (first staff meeting, 1981)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Uhm, I've heard about these 911 conspiracy theories but don't want to dive too deep into research. So could anybody give me a clear reason/motive why the U.S. Government or any sub-groups capable of pulling this off would have wanted to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

gulf of tonkin is now a confirmed manufactured incident, wonder why they made that up?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't assuming there is no conspiracy without researching it yourself just as ignorant as being a "conspiracy nut"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because real news stories show up in the Washington Post and on CNN. A true conspiracy would be a real news story. Therefore, if it hasn't been on CNN or the Washington Post, it's likely false. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, just like they ignored the early 2002 conspiracy nut theory that there really were NO WMD in Iraq, and Saddam really had NO ties to Al Qaeda. Oh wait...

If your only rebuttal is that it can't be true if CNN didn't cover it, you're going to have to bring more to the plate than that. I don't even buy the controlled demolition theory, but anyone who says CNN is the bastion of truth after the past 5 years is as misguided as... Alex Jones. The media has done a TERRIBLE job since 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual rebuttals are all over the internet. My point is that it's hardly ignorant to expect the news media to cover well-discussed conspiracy theories without investigating them yourself. Especially when investigating is going to involve relying on sources even less credible than the major media.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't assuming there is no conspiracy without researching it yourself just as ignorant as being a "conspiracy nut"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because real news stories show up in the Washington Post and on CNN. A true conspiracy would be a real news story. Therefore, if it hasn't been on CNN or the Washington Post, it's likely false. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, just like they ignored the early 2002 conspiracy nut theory that there really were NO WMD in Iraq, and Saddam really had NO ties to Al Qaeda. Oh wait...

If your only rebuttal is that it can't be true if CNN didn't cover it, you're going to have to bring more to the plate than that. I don't even buy the controlled demolition theory, but anyone who says CNN is the bastion of truth after the past 5 years is as misguided as... Alex Jones. The media has done a TERRIBLE job since 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual rebuttals are all over the internet. My point is that it's hardly ignorant to expect the news media to cover well-discussed conspiracy theories without investigating them yourself. Especially when investigating is going to involve relying on sources even less credible than the major media.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but the mainstream media has refused to cover important aspects of the "war on terror" that make the government look bad (ie Bush's ties to the Saudis, ties to companies that have gotten major govt contracts, etc). This leads to an incomplete understanding of the big picture, and because of this one can't rely solely on CNN for their info and not be ignorant of certain realities.

[Nielsio]

[ 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 ]


What is your sequential mechanism theory for the structural components of the building in order for it to explode at near free fall speed (even though it was designed NOT to), which includes ejecting beams hundreds of meters away, turning most of the concrete into micro-dust (which happens in mid-air), and that leaves large amounts of molton metal in the basements that stays hot for weeks and weeks.

I'd also like to add that NIST would be extremely interested in that theory, as they cannot come up with anything more than 'global collapse ensued'.


Watch this short video to understand this problem more thoroughly:
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.co...anisms-of.html

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your sequential mechanism theory for the structural components of the building....

[/ QUOTE ]

This explains it very well, and it is short and readable:

Article by demolition experts

What is your mechanism theory for why independent demolition experts would join in the coverup?

I watched the vid link you provided. I found it to be supposition. Care to check the implosionworld.com article?

[Dane S]

Yeah, that article seems to really slam the door shut on any theories of controlled demolition.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd be focusing on Saudi ties, irregularities in procedure on the day itself, and irregularities in the investigation I think.

Also would like to note that if there WAS a conspiracy, imo there's no way Bush was in the know. His scared shitless face when they whispered the news in his ear was waaaay too good to be fake. He isn't that good of an actor.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is your sequential mechanism theory for the structural components of the building....

[/ QUOTE ]

This explains it very well, and it is short and readable:

Article by demolition experts

I watched the vid link you provided. I found it to be supposition. Care to check the implosionworld.com article?

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked it out. It doesn't address the question. It doesn't even attempt to.


[ QUOTE ]
What is your mechanism theory for why independent demolition experts would join in the coverup?

[/ QUOTE ]


1. This is only of secundary concern and this is not an adequate way of dealing with the central question.

2. There are independent demolition experts who make the opposite claim.

3. Think about both the ties with government (NIST, etc). This thing is also addressed in the vid I linked. There are HUGE incentives at work for these people. On the individual level, there is hardly anything to gain to come out and there is everything to lose if they would. These types of incentives have a huge effect on your psyche also. When you're so embedded in this kind of stuff it's almost impossible to think for yourself in a clear mindset.

But again: right now I'm not interested in this. I view this kind of talk as a diversion as to not having to deal with the primary question. This goes for basically the entire pdf you linked as well. It's all clever tricks NOT having to deal with matters.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Also would like to note that if there WAS a conspiracy, imo there's no way Bush was in the know. His scared shitless face when they whispered the news in his ear was waaaay too good to be fake. He isn't that good of an actor.

[/ QUOTE ]


I tend to agree with you; and that is actually one of the main and most plausible (in my view) theories:

http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.co...ue-key-to.html