The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

oscarBravo · 11-09-2006 11:09pm

Gordon wrote:

Now I'm looking harder and it seems that the retort is indeed the second link which contains the answers to conspiracy theorists with added 'Notes' of an explanation (read: retort) against the NIST's answers. So.. thanks, I'll read that later.

I'm skimming it now. Some initial observations:

This merely asserts that the impact of the planes did damage. It does not establish that, from a structural point of view, the damage done was other than negligible.

I'm bewildered as to how the impact of a heavily-fueled 767 at cruising speed could possibly be considered to have inflicted "negligible" structural damage. I mean, look what flight 77 did to the Pentagon - and that's mass concrete.

How can the NIST completely ignore the 47 core columns, which were the distinctive engineering feature of the Twin Towers and would have made the kind of collapse they describe here impossible unless all of the support columns on a floor had simultaneously failed?

Unsupported assertion. Where's the evidence that the simultaneous failure of all 47 columns on a single floor is a prerequisite for collapse?

...even if the temperature of the fire had been as great as 1,000 degrees C, which it was not...

It wasn't? Where's the evidence for this?

...the collapse would have involved gradual and asymmetrical sagging and buckling...

It did, as clearly demonstrated by the photographic evidence in the NIST report.

...most of the fuel was consumed in those massive fireballs upon impact...

It was? Where's the evidence for this?

...the fires were oxygen-starved, as the billowing black clouds indicated...

NIST addressed this.

...they were burning far below 1,000 degrees C, probably on the average closer to 250 degrees C...

They were? Where's the evidence for this?

This might have been true if the floors had actually collapsed as the government maintains, but they were blown up from the top down.

Another example of using your conclusion as evidence to support your conclusion.

Steel beams are beling blown outward and even upward...

I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of this.

The buildings cannot have "collapsed" at a speed faster than free fall...

Straw man. NIST didn't claim they fell faster than free fall, they said "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." Given that the collapse of the towers initiated at approximately floors 98 and 82 respectively, these timings seem reasonable - for exterior panels falling outside the collapsing structure itself.

The temperatures only averaged about 500 degrees F...

Where's the evidence for this?

Steel is an excellent thermal conductor...

As I understand it, steel is a fairly good thermal conductor. For example, pure aluminium has a thermal conductivity of 373 W/m K; pure copper 401 (now there's an excellent conductor), whereas steel is less than 50.

The billowing black clouds of smoke were indicative of oxygen deprived fires, which were burning at temperatures way below those that could be attained under ideal conditions in the presence of pure oxygen.

This doesn't, as stated, contradict the NIST account. The presence of oxygen-starved fires in no way precludes the presence of much hotter oxygen-rich fires in the same building.

NIST should consult with Professor Steven Jones of BYU...

Um, I don't think that's going to be happening until Professor Jones clears up his major credibility problems.

Squaddy · 12-09-2006 1:07am

Wow, omg, was anyone watching RTE's Secret history of 9/11? That is sure to raise some eyebrows, makes u proud to be living in a democratic country.

Nick_oliveri · 12-09-2006 2:21am

Gordon wrote:

Hence, I didn't read further.

Ye im like that with some sites on this subject,

guess which ones?!

Tbh im just speculating now, reading both sides very carefully. Some things go over my head. I found this to be a gem though. Funny stuff!

Squaddy wrote:

Wow, omg, was anyone watching RTE's Secret history of 9/11? That is sure to raise some eyebrows, makes u proud to be living in a democratic country.

No, i would have loved to seen it though. Twas a CBC documentary.
Transcript?!

Dramatization of the first attack on the World Trade Center

Lol, looks good!

Nick_oliveri · 12-09-2006 9:20pm

Im not sure if this link has been posted here before.
But here is the power of nightmares. (factual, apparently, and does not contain damning accusations without proof!)

Critisism 1 (Blog Link)
Critisism 2 (Medialens.org)

If this has been posted before, let me know if possible and i will delete this post.
The reason i think it has been posted, is that there are a lot of locations available to download the thing!

Edit: Oh yeah, this film, Right at Your Door has come out and me girlfriend is in the Omniplex watching it right now.

Plot Outline: A dirty bomb goes off in Los Angeles, jamming freeways and spreading a toxic cloud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for 1 year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high".

However, recent analysis of the Chernobyl fallout seems to show that many people are hardly affected over 5 years and more.

Because a terrorist dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths as a result of the conventional explosives, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror

But we already knew that. I hate these representations of terror attacks that they peddle out. Even Sky One was doing this back three or four years ago.

Im not saying this is going to terrify me woman or anything, she wont care. But some people will think that theres a probability of such an attack to come, with devastating effects!! Oh noes :mad:

tunaman · 13-09-2006 2:29am

bonkey wrote:

Tell you what....

I've asked you to explain why you misrepresented NISTs comment about the measured temperatuires. I've offered (twice now) to answer the question about why a lack of direct measurement isn't an issue once you've done that.

This isn't the NIST roadshow, no matter how badly you want it to be...

<edit>Arguably, asking why you misrepresented something could be said to be a loaded question

There is no doubt or arguement about it...

This is after you tried to accuse me of asking oscar a loaded question, based on the widely reported fact, that Hanjour was a useless pilot...

You answer, then I answer.

I didn't misrepresent the only physical evidence available...

Then we'll start again. This time, you get to ask the first question, and I'll ask the second. So basically, I ask question 1 (why did you mis-represent the temperature information) and you get to ask 2 in return (one after the other), then I ask 2, then you ask 2 and so on.

We have gone back and forth more than enough times already, so I know by now that you have no interest in having a real discussion...

So...are you up for it? Willing to show that you're the honest player here and that I'm the one using underhanded tactics to try and undermine your position?

Your incredibly weak position on building 7 is more than enough evidence that you are not interested in being honest, so you just keep trying to convince yourself it was brought down by fire and some falling debris...

tunaman · 13-09-2006 2:37am

Here is what a Dutch demolition expert said when he saw the footage of building 7 coming down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&NR

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

billy the squid · 13-09-2006 4:26am

Didn't the owner of building 7 tell them to pull the building though?

Nick_oliveri · 13-09-2006 4:37am

billy the squid wrote:

Didn't the owner of building 7 tell them to pull the building though?

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/silversteins-first-public-pull-it.html

Identifying Misinformation -(.gov responses )

bonkey · 13-09-2006 7:23am

tunaman wrote:

This isn't the NIST roadshow, no matter how badly you want it to be...

So thats a no then?

Its enlightening to see that you couldn't just refuse politely, or even silently, but rather had to engage (yet again) in the so-called "disinfo tactics" you've accused me of as well.

Check your list...you'll find a number of items that this falls under. Getting indignant, name calling, ridicule, questioning my motives, changing the subect, attempting to goad me.....

Gosh, you must have hit 5 or 6 points with one sentence.

There is no doubt or arguement about it...
...
I didn't misrepresent the only physical evidence available...

Let me see if I understand this.

You supplied a NIST quote to back up an assertion that temperatures didn't get over a certain point. In the sentence right beside the one you quoted, in any NIST documentation where you'll find the piece you quoted, there is another sentence which you omitted which says not to use the information you used to argue the point you used it to argue.

You neither supplied the warning quote nor a reference to any NIST source to allow someone else to easily see the NIST caution. You treated the inforamtion in the way its authors made clear it should not be used and you did as much as is possible to do to "cover your tracks" so to speak so that people wouldn't easily find this caution.

Its misprepresentation, pure and simple. It may not have been through malice. As with the Romero issue, I'm not suggesting that you deliberately attempted to withold relevant information. I'm allowing that you simply didn't do your research properly, or used someone else's argument without properly researching what it was you were regurgitating.

But no matter what way you look at it, you used the NIST quote to assert exactly the point that NIST made clear that quote doesn't support.

We have gone back and forth more than enough times already, so I know by now that you have no interest in having a real discussion...

And again with the "disinfo tactics"...

Your incredibly weak position on building 7 is more than enough evidence that you are not interested in being honest,

I'm sorry...did I mistake that list you posted? I could have sworn you said it was the tactics people like me used, not stuff that you should use as a checklist when writing your posts against people like me.

I'm not biting. Go look for someone else to get a rise out of with your insults.

bonkey · 13-09-2006 7:34am

billy the squid wrote:

Didn't the owner of building 7 tell them to pull the building though?

No, he didn't.

The owner/leaseholder of building 7 made a comment in an interview at a much later stage, where he said "the decision was made to pull" which has been interpreted to mean "the decision was made to pull the building", which has in turn been interpreted to mean "the decision was made to demolish the building", which in turn has become "the decision was made to demolish the building and thats what we did".

One key interpretation (pull == demolish) is reinforced by the use of the word pull in a different time and place by a different person when referring to the demolition of building 6.

There are numerous reasons why this analysis is far from being as cut-and-dried as its proponents would have us believe.

One simple point is that "pull" in demolition terms means literally that - ropes are used to pull the building off-balance until it topples. Its a technique used only with relatively low buildings where there are reasons why the direction of needs to be so closely controlled.

This is, unsurprisingly, how building 6 was demolished, so the relevance (to WTC7 and Silverstein) of someone using the term "pull" with regards to its demolition is questionable at best.

911myths etc. for more reasons why its a dodgy claim.

rondjon · 13-09-2006 12:59pm

Diogenes wrote:

Really? Really, where did I say that? I think you'll find I was dismissive of the timing, but I never said, "no he didn't". I'm just wondering what he was supposed to do with all that cash hours before he killed himself.

Assuming you believe he was on the plane. His baggage was filtered out and not put on the plane through the CAPPS profiling at Boston Airport. His baggage would only have been put on the plane when he actually boarded himself.

Yet his baggage was found afterwards at the airport, and provided the strong "evidence" that he was involved in the attacks.

By his baggage being left behind and not put on the flight, this implies that Atta himself did not get on the plane from Boston.

Put this another way - we have no evidence that he actually was on the flight either.

bonkey · 13-09-2006 1:20pm

rondjon wrote:

Put this another way - we have no evidence that he actually was on the flight either.

You mean US airports don't control who does and does not pass through boarding gates?

I'm shocked.

Its no wonder something like 911 could be pulled off if they don't even crosscheck who does and doesn't board the plane against who has and hasn't checked in for it.

Jocksereire · 13-09-2006 2:32pm

billy the squid wrote:

Didn't the owner of building 7 tell them to pull the building though?

Yes this is correct. He did say this and he wasnt refering to "It" as the firemen either as others willl try convince you

Jocksereire · 13-09-2006 2:44pm

bonkey wrote:

911myths etc. for more reasons why its a dodgy claim.

Lets listen to more from 911myths and Popular Mechanics etc.... http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

oscarBravo · 13-09-2006 3:40pm

Jocksereire wrote:

Yes this is correct. He did say this and he wasnt refering to "It" as the firemen either as others willl try convince you

You have, of course, copious evidence for this assertion.

bonkey · 13-09-2006 5:33pm

Jocksereire wrote:

Yes this is correct. He did say this and he wasnt refering to "It" as the firemen either as others willl try convince you

So you believe he discussed with a fire chief whether or not they should throw ropes over a building to pull it over, despite it being some 40 stories higher than said method is possible for?

jc

Squaddy · 13-09-2006 8:09pm

Protests on Monday about 9/11

Popular mechanics and 9/11 myths are just as bad as the conspircay theories - bullsh!t. link Conspiracy theorists pwn them!

Ciaran500 · 13-09-2006 8:31pm

Squaddy wrote:

Popular mechanics and 9/11 myths are just as bad as the conspircay theories - bullsh!t. link Conspiracy theorists pwn them!

Popular mechanics came off far far better than LC in that. LC guys seem so childish.

Squaddy · 13-09-2006 8:35pm

Ciaran500 wrote:

Popular mechanics came off far far better than LC in that. LC guys seem so childish.

Yeah i agree they where childish with there sniggering and that but I thought they came off a little bit better because of the fact that we still have unanswered questions.

bonkey · 13-09-2006 8:36pm

The ability to form a reasoned, considered analysis of something and the ability to think rapidly on your feet and argue your case well in real-time are, unsurprisingly, two entirely different things.

I guess its a case of how you rate something like this. If you want decide who came across as the more suave, more confident speakers...its the LC guys. If you want to decide who has the better case, you do the same as you do with that horrible written stuff....you go and do that horrible research stuff and find out who actually has the more credible argument.

I'm listening to the LC guys and their basic defense is "you're a liar" mixed with a repetition of the stance they take in their video, insisting that its all true. Oh, and the usual derision (see tunaman's notes on why this is used) at people espousing views they don't agree with.

The fact that anyone can think either side "owned" the other in any meaningful sense in a tv debate is more of a comment on how they form their judgements than on the technical merit of either argument presented in that video.

jc

Diogenes · 14-09-2006 1:27am

Squaddy wrote:

Yeah i agree they where childish with there sniggering and that but I thought they came off a little bit better because of the fact that we still have unanswered questions.

I think they are graduates of the Bill O Reilly school of debating. As popular mechanics guys point out that they don't know everything they just have issue with several of the loose change guys points. You are always going to have unanswered questions if you fire off a dozen questions on various tangents, and while your opponent is answering one, you interupt and call him a liar.

However folks we can all go home as a former Mi5 agent David Shayler has explained exactly what happened.

Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, **** it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

Wow, all this does is convince me that the security services couldn't have pulled off 9/11 if this dingbat made it into their ranks, how incompetend must they be?

Nick_oliveri · 14-09-2006 5:14am

Diogenes wrote:

However folks we can all go home as a former Mi5 agent David Shayler has explained exactly what happened.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

0_o Guy must smoke everything that yoy possibly could smoke. And then wash that down with LSD!

Squaddy · 14-09-2006 5:18pm

Yea but that guy was lying he said that punch out hole was 24(?) foot?

Ok, another new video, 3 parts link its called 9/11 mysteries. very good.

bonkey · 14-09-2006 6:21pm

Can I ask what's good about it?

And seriously...can any of the Conspiracy-advocates offer a credible reason as to why video has become preferable to the written word for this type of stuff?

With the exception of an event which you need to see in animated form (e.g. the actual collapse sequence of a building), there is nothing where it comes remotely close to the written word as a research tool.

I believe this is reflected in the way in which you see its virtues extolled. When people are "pimping" a written work, they seem to be able/willing to convey far, far more information about what they learned then with video, where we get what we just got...soundbites that its good, excellent, well-made, well-researched, will change your life, will open your eyes....god, anything except some details about what it does, why its not just more of the same, or why it has the virtues its being pimped for.

Yea but that guy was lying he said that punch out hole was 24(?) foot?

Was he? You know that he knew that information was false, and was deliberately trying to mislead people? There isn't the slightest possibility that he got his facts wrong, or was flustered and verbally slipped up? He was actively trying to mislead people?

See, this is something thats become unbelievable common in today's media and somehow the general public seem to be buying into it. Being wrong does not necessarily mean you're a liar. Incorrect information are not necessarily lies.

Seriously....watch the interview again. Not once will Avery or his buddy say "You are mistaken". Not once will they say "you are incorrect". Instead, time after time after time after time they do exactly what you've done - said its a lie and/or the person saying it is a liar.

It is one of the simplest concepts to grasp and it is unbelievable how many people are unable or unwilling to grasp it (see...I'm not going to assume motive even here...that would be the same pitfall!)

jc

Nick_oliveri · 14-09-2006 8:40pm

bonkey wrote:

Seriously....watch the interview again. Not once will Avery or his buddy say "You are mistaken". Not once will they say "you are incorrect". Instead, time after time after time after time they do exactly what you've done - said its a lie and/or the person saying it is a liar.

jc

I can imagine being either of those guys. (LC) They probably went in scared and with the assumption that they would be called crackpots and looneys. So, every rebuttal was a harsh one and childish laughter prevailed also.

There wasnt enough time given for both sides with these large breaks in between. I hate to see debates fizzle out into pure shíte.

The other PM guy didnt say much. The one who was talking seemed very nervous. Man id never do a televised debate!

The previous Alex Jones vid posted was very wrong IMO. You dont do that crap around families who are trying to grieve. As many of them have different pictures of what happened.

The last thing any of them wanted was some ejjit shouting through a megaphone telling them to blame someone else at the anniversary of their loved ones deaths.

I know whats said here and elsewhere is feck all different but at least theres no rubbing it in your face crap.

Bonkey, just look at the reception Fahrenheit 9/11 got (good and bad). The written word is not as strong as a cinematic release or a (widespread) internet download. (I own a Mícheal Moore book BTW

)

I dont mean to assume anything here but if you are not watching a video based on initial judgement/ the points its trying to put across, then you wont know the points that are being raised and if there is anything to refute/discuss.

I'll sit through either side tbh, and ill read both sides of the argument (not just here) whereas a couple of weeks ago i admit i wasnt doing this properly and i wouldnt be paying attention to the article or rebuttal i was lookin at (gullablilitus Nick_Oliveirus!).

I know theres a lot of the same old crap in similar videos but its good to come across a new point every now and then.

tunaman · 16-09-2006 1:55am

bonkey wrote:

So thats a no then?

You are trying to claim that the only physical evidence available, can only be used in the way you and NIST want it to be used...

They are forced to resort to speculation that the steel got any hotter than 250C, which is a tactic conspiracy theorists are always accused of...

You supplied a NIST quote to back up an assertion that temperatures didn't get over a certain point. In the sentence right beside the one you quoted, in any NIST documentation where you'll find the piece you quoted, there is another sentence which you omitted which says not to use the information you used to argue the point you used it to argue.

That added sentence you are talking about basically resorts to pleading, which is exactly what you are doing now...

In effect they want people to ignore the extremely limited physical evidence available, but lap up their support for an already decided conclusion...

So what evidence are they basing this conclusion on?

Its misprepresentation, pure and simple.

No it's not.

What NIST have done is not only misrepresent the evidence, but they have completely ignored all the evidence which strongly suggests demolition...

But no matter what way you look at it, you used the NIST quote to assert exactly the point that NIST made clear that quote doesn't support.

That's because they have tried to cover their asses...

I'm not biting. Go look for someone else to get a rise out of with your insults.

Where did I insult you in that post?

Nothing to say about the claims made by the demolition expert, about building 7 definitely being a controlled demolition, in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&eurl=

He was contacted yesterday by a stunned official story promoter, who was posing as a journalist for the Washington post looking for a quote. :rolleyes:

He was then given this on the record quote by Mr. Jowenko...

"due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition".

bonkey wrote:

I'm listening to the LC guys and their basic defense is "you're a liar" mixed with a repetition of the stance they take in their video, insisting that its all true. Oh, and the usual derision (see tunaman's notes on why this is used) at people espousing views they don't agree with.

They brought up many facts which were completely ignored by the other side...

The PM lads were resorting to the usual avoidance tactics during the whole debate, then near the end they really lost it and resorted to the holocaust denier accusation...

It doesn't get any weaker than that...

Nick_oliveri · 17-09-2006 12:06am

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15775

A convenience store videotape long-sought by September 11 conspiracy theorists does not actually show the attack on the Pentagon, RAW STORY has learned.

Many believed the video would show American Airlines Flight 77 -- or something else -- striking the Pentagon. The videotape, which depicts views from the gas stationâ€™s six security cameras, shows that the CITGO cameras did not seem to capture the actual attack.

Conservative organization Judicial Watch obtained the footage through a Freedom of Information Act request filed December 15, 2004. The request sought all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Nexcomm/CITGO gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.

In May 2006, The Department of Defense released a number of videos depicting the attack in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit. The group filed another lawsuit against the FBI on June 22, 2006.

The FBI has also agreed to release to Judicial Watch a videotape obtained from the Doubletree Hotel near the Pentagon by November 9, 2006 .

01/01/93? (time on teh tape) Wierd. I'd never bother to put in the proper time on my security cameras probably, (if i had one) but if any of the footage was to be used in the prosecution of a robber or such, it would probably be deemed unsuitable for evidence for the case!!

civdef · 17-09-2006 12:47am

Hmm, this thread looks a lot better with the ignore button used judiciously. Course that also means there isn't much point looking at it..

billy the squid · 17-09-2006 5:08am

It looks even better with the ban button used.

so if you have nothing to contribute...

civdef · 17-09-2006 11:38am

Ah, nice to see some moderator input there. Duly noted.

It's funny how in this thread it seems to be perfectly OK to accuse other posters of being liars at will (some might call that a personal attack - is that mentioned in the charter?), without any appearance of the ruling deity, but a "lack of meaningful contribution" infringement is leaped upon eagerly.

Priorities?

The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Comments