9/11 was a conspiracy?

[MegaloMialo]

Hey guys, i have a question. I saw a documentary here in sweden created by the people claiming that the us goverment was behind the attacks and one of the things that i wonder is how come it was possible for a ordinary plane to hit the pentagon after those first massive hits? how come they did not have airspace control?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey guys, i have a question. I saw a documentary here in sweden created by the people claiming that the us goverment was behind the attacks and one of the things that i wonder is how come it was possible for a ordinary plane to hit the pentagon after those first massive hits? how come they did not have airspace control?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]


And herein lies the problem when trying to debate with those who believe in conspiracy theories. No amount of evidence will ever be good enough to convince them that they are wrong. They invest so much time convincing themselves that there is a conspiracy, that it would be too much of a let down to stop believing. It's much easier for them to just dismiss all contradictory evidence out of hand, without really looking at it.

The only solution is to ignore them and let them believe in their crackpot theories. "Debating" with them is a waste of time. You just end up whistling into the wind.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
And herein lies the problem when trying to debate with those who believe in conspiracy theories. No amount of evidence will ever be good enough to convince them that they are wrong. They invest so much time convincing themselves that there is a conspiracy, that it would be too much of a let down to stop believing. It's much easier for them to just dismiss all contradictory evidence out of hand, without really looking at it.

The only solution is to ignore them and let them believe in their crackpot theories. "Debating" with them is a waste of time. You just end up whistling into the wind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I haven't read your link sorry but another ;poster was correct that the official NIST report basically concludes they are not sure why 7 collapsed and a subsequent report stated that explosives can't be ruled out blah blah.

So just from that it seems to me that nobody really knows that the heck went on there. So you can't claim that the matter is settled and that some people just won't listen.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And herein lies the problem when trying to debate with those who believe in conspiracy theories. No amount of evidence will ever be good enough to convince them that they are wrong. They invest so much time convincing themselves that there is a conspiracy, that it would be too much of a let down to stop believing. It's much easier for them to just dismiss all contradictory evidence out of hand, without really looking at it.

The only solution is to ignore them and let them believe in their crackpot theories. "Debating" with them is a waste of time. You just end up whistling into the wind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I haven't read your link sorry but another ;poster was correct that the official NIST report basically concludes they are not sure why 7 collapsed and a subsequent report stated that explosives can't be ruled out blah blah.

So just from that it seems to me that nobody really knows that the heck went on there. So you can't claim that the matter is settled and that some people just won't listen.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should read it. It's pretty short and it's not so technical that you can't follow what they're talking about. Even they don't totally rule out explosives on WTC7, but state why it's very unlikely.

Also, I've never understood the reasoning behind wanting to take down WTC7. If you polled everyone but those in NYC, how many would even know that WTC7 fell as well?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]


And herein lies the problem when trying to debate with those who believe in conspiracy theories. No amount of evidence will ever be good enough to convince them that they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is no scientific theory proposed for the 12-15 seconds of the towers coming down. You start with a theory and then you look for evidence supporting or debunking.


Well, this is not exactly true. Initially there was the 'pancaking' theory, but that one was easily debunked.

This is why I'm saying NIST would be really interested. They cannot get further than 'global collapse ensued'.

Do you see the problem here? If they have the balls to come forward with an actual mechanism, then they're open to actual scrutiny of their theory. It's better for them to keep this issue obscured, up in the air, and open to people's fantasy.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Hey guys, i have a question. I saw a documentary here in sweden created by the people claiming that the us goverment was behind the attacks and one of the things that i wonder is how come it was possible for a ordinary plane to hit the pentagon after those first massive hits? how come they did not have airspace control?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

[/ QUOTE ]

Also there were many airforce norad and other "drills" of hijacked planes on 911, so it took a while for people to figure out that the real hijackings were not part of the drills.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Hey guys, i have a question. I saw a documentary here in sweden created by the people claiming that the us goverment was behind the attacks and one of the things that i wonder is how come it was possible for a ordinary plane to hit the pentagon after those first massive hits? how come they did not have airspace control?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

[/ QUOTE ]

Also there were many airforce norad and other "drills" of hijacked planes on 911, so it took a while for people to figure out that the real hijackings were not part of the drills.

[/ QUOTE ]

PLO,

Check the vid I linked about from Webster Tarpley. He thoroughly analyzes the function of drills and how it's a vehicle of switching to the actual terrorism, of making sure that your own forces will not intervene, and of making sure that the people who were not in the know will have to go along afterwards.

[Dan.]

Skipping much of the thread, I'm just going to post my general thoughts and you can ignore them, refute them, whatever. I'm not sure if I feel like concretely debating:

While I find it very unlikely--though somewhat possible--that the US orchestrated 9/11, I believe that the government had more than enough evidence of an impending attack and could have acted to disrupt if not prevent 9/11. I believe the government more or less stood idly by since 9/11 would serve as an excellent stepping-stone into Iraq, which some former insiders claim was the plan long before 9/11 occurred.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Skipping much of the thread, I'm just going to post my general thoughts and you can ignore them, refute them, whatever. I'm not sure if I feel like concretely debating:

While I find it very unlikely--though somewhat possible--that the US orchestrated 9/11, I believe that the government had more than enough evidence of an impending attack and could have acted to disrupt if not prevent 9/11. I believe the government more or less stood idly by since 9/11 would serve as an excellent stepping-stone into Iraq, which some former insiders claim was the plan long before 9/11 occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory. If you check the Webster Harpley vid link I gave earlier you'll see LIHOP versus MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) discussed and analyzed in detail.