9/11 Conspiracy theory? or Facts?

[wbfree]

Great one Niburu.

I have to say that after reviewing this whole thread there were a lot more people open minded and questioning than I originally remember noticing. I will admit I didn't read all before posting. I guess I just wanted to throw my two cents in there.

I need to see if theres a thread for the post election predictions if anything will even change in the next couple years. fireman are getting sick and dying from 9/11. Approx 70% are sick now.

[wbfree]

Nice try... check out this mancow show and Alex Jones' producer. He did well under attack the whole time. I felt sorry for the firefighter. He's actually a minority in his neck of the woods. I also feel for him because so many have lung conditions already. Don't abandon the heroes. Anyway here's the link to the show. We'll see if it's around long after this.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...d&hl=undefined

[Ambiguity]

It was Bill O'Riley. He is the mastermind behind 9/11.

Why? He needed content for his show. Duh.

[SiKiKSoulJa]

indeed.....

Originally Posted by SiKiKSoulJa

Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.
Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
Molten metal: A stream of what might be liquid metal was videotaped flowing out of the corner of WTC2 moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses observed and reported pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.

Counter-claim:
-the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact
-it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building
-Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated
-According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle
-Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
-Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers.

[james776]

woo South Park!

[quetzalcoatl]

was just thinking that this thread ought not be buried by ignorance

currently in burlington vermont, people will soon vote whether 9/11 should be reinvestigated
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...plate=printart

i hope burlington votes well

[sidran]

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

Everyone, read up. You might learn something.

[quetzalcoatl]

^weird, this site is not so much about "we never landed on the moon" but more like "the moon doesn't exist"... one email on that site was a little interesting as far as attributing a female deity to the moon so that women will continue to be subservient to men (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/Feedback17.html) but other arguments don't hold up... like the physics argument

it goes, if the moon really exists, then why doesn't it fall on us? ... the site talks a little about gravity but neglects centripital force i.e. the moon IS CONSTANTLY falling!! but it's oribital velocity is such that it misses everytime (all the time)... thus, that is why things can stay in orbit (provided that they meet a required orbital velocity)

as far as the existence of the moon, i know that it's a purty thing to look at, to me it only exists as an image, i know what other people say about it, but my personal relationship with the moon is a visual one.. although thought provoking..

waitwait, so what did you want to imply about this 9/11 coverup??

[sidran]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

^weird, this site is not so much about "we never landed on the moon" but more like "the moon doesn't exist"... one email on that site was a little interesting as far as attributing a female deity to the moon so that women will continue to be subservient to men (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/Feedback17.html) but other arguments don't hold up... like the physics argument

it goes, if the moon really exists, then why doesn't it fall on us? ... the site talks a little about gravity but neglects centripital force i.e. the moon IS CONSTANTLY falling!! but it's oribital velocity is such that it misses everytime (all the time)... thus, that is why things can stay in orbit (provided that they meet a required orbital velocity)

as far as the existence of the moon, i know that it's a purty thing to look at, to me it only exists as an image, i know what other people say about it, but my personal relationship with the moon is a visual one.. although thought provoking..

waitwait, so what did you want to imply about this 9/11 coverup??

The site was put together in order to demonstrate that you can pretty much argue anything using methods typically employed by those who cook up these conspiracy "theories" (which are not theories but hypothesis). If you read it through, a lot of it can make sense, to a point. It can get you thinking and questioning your own beliefs, even what is actually being said is flat out wrong and/or illogical. But, it seems the average person is incapable of identifying the logical fallacies and will suspend their own thought process believing them to be true because someone who looks official and says they know what they're talking about said so.

[sidran]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

it goes, if the moon really exists, then why doesn't it fall on us? ... the site talks a little about gravity but neglects centripital force i.e. the moon IS CONSTANTLY falling!! but it's oribital velocity is such that it misses everytime (all the time)... thus, that is why things can stay in orbit (provided that they meet a required orbital velocity)

See, he could argue that this is not the case and is a lie that is perpetrated by the government or whatever to make you think it exists. You can pretty much claim anything.

[Sentinel]

So people are debating what is true and what is a lie. Let's look at the idea of truth. No person has an objective view of the world. Such omnicient powers are often associated with God or similar mystical figures. If someone tells you gravity doesn't exist, and things are held together by some other force - say... love? - how would you determine what is true?

The first thing people usually do is fall back on experience. If that doesn't work, people look to other people for help. Poll the audience. Also, the theory that has been around for the longest, in spite of competing theories is most likely to be true because it has withstood the most opposition. An argument that counters objections is the strongest.

Reality tends to thought of as fixed, but I disagree. Reality - what is true - is very variable. We form our opinion of truth based on all the information we receive. If information is ommited, then people can easily come to the wrong conclusion. This is a popular propaganda tactic. Someone who never took physics is more likely to believe an anti-gravity theory. Basically, when new ideas are presented, the field of play changes and so does a person's perception of reality.

Before conspiracy theories emerged, 9/11 was a terrorist plot. That was the truth. But now the truth has changed for some people who are compelled by different opinions about 9/11. The more positive exposure conspiracy theories get, the truer they become. The truth can easily be manipulated if someone has the power or skill. Conversely, the more negative exposure alternative theories get, the truer the original theory becomes. For example, each time someone brings up an anti-holocaust theory and it is struck down, the holocause becomes more true.

The truth is in your hands. What will you do with this great power? People say you can't argue with facts, but it's really the way people are trained to view certain instances that you can't argue with. One person can see a falling rock as proof of gravity while another person can see that as proof for some rock-magnetism theory.

[quetzalcoatl]

^well said

this 9/11 debate, iraq debates, god debates, and everything is all a matter of what you personally believe. and what you believe is not so much about accepting the facts or nonfacts that are presented to you; no, you believe what you want to believe, because we all can't help but define the world according to us. that's what this brain is for. that's who we are as "god experiencing itself subjectively"... you will choose to believe what fits into your world view

my view is that wow we're ****ing ourselves over and over and it's time to take responsibility and perfect creation

i mean, look at this guy squirm!! http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWk5AhxZMpw

[Sentinel]

That clip was sort of hard to make out, but I think I got the general idea.

"What do you say about claims that you knew about 9/11 in advance?"

"Well, umm.... you see.... there is a time for politics."

BTW, where did you dig up such an obscure clip? (You're getting more resourceful.)

[sidran]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

That clip was sort of hard to make out, but I think I got the general idea.

"What do you say about claims that you knew about 9/11 in advance?"

"Well, umm.... you see.... there is a time for politics."

BTW, where did you dig up such an obscure clip? (You're getting more resourceful.)

Actually, it's more like:
"Howard Dean said you knew about 9/11 in advance. Do you agree with whoever that this borders on political hate speech?"

"Well, umm.... you see.... there is a time for politics."