Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
9/11 attacks weren't a US plot !!
Options
-
22-10-2010 5:21am#1Caroline Hutchinson | 22nd October 2010Is it just me or does everyone think the interweb has a lot to answer for? In a weird alignment of planets, this week in the news, at home and at work I’ve been plagued by conspiracy theorists determined to convince me, once again, that George Bush, Zionists or even the Vatican were responsible for the September 11 attacks.
In general, I consider conspiracy theories the rabid fantasies of lonely blokes who failed at university and have spent the rest of their lives trying to prove they’re smarter than everyone who passed. And since many of them are, unlike me, smart enough to retain and regurgitate precise (albeit selective) scientific detail, it makes me a pretty soft target for their rants. Therefore, in preparation for my next 9/11 nut job assault, I’ve been working on an official response.
I don’t know if you’ve checked, but there are significantly more websites dedicated to conspiracy theories than to the mainstream point of view. In fact my 15-year-old got half way through a history assignment on September 11 before her confused cries for help alerted us to the fact she was reading the wrong stuff. I know if you’re a conspiracy theorist you’re mad at me now for not letting my daughter read everything and draw her own conclusions. Honestly, I was just saving her the time. With a nod to the animated series South Park, in short, there are three reasons I don’t think George Bush, The Pope or even the CIA did it – love, logistics and dibber-dobbers.Truth Movement websites, as they’re known, routinely claim there were no terrorists on board any of the 9/11 flights.
Apparently the pilots were either stooges or, in the case of the World Trade Centre crashes, the planes were military jets guided remotely into the buildings with no passengers on board. The phone calls from supposed loved ones were faked and the actual passenger jets that went missing on the day were shot down over the ocean. The heart of the conspiracy theory stems from how the buildings collapsed. In particular, that an aviation fuel fire is incapable of melting steel, that the buildings collapsed upon themselves and that a third building, not hit by a hijacked plane also collapsed. There’s plenty more, by the way, but this will do for now. Based on those propositions, the truth movement contends all three buildings were imploded in a “controlled demolition” using explosives planted at some earlier time. They also claim the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner but by a guided missile and the fourth airliner, United 93, was shot down en route to the capital because the passengers threatened to land it successfully thus exposing the plot.
To accept any of it, you have to believe there are thousands of people connected to the US government evil and brilliant enough to co-ordinate such a complex plan, without one person ever dobbing. Keep in mind that the group had to train or invent 19 fake hijackers, complete with elaborate background stories and send them to flying schools across the country to ensure there was someone to blame following the event. Imagine the paperwork. No matter how rotten you think the US administration is there must be some good people in there. And surely they’d be looking for paperwork on every new recruit, every planning meeting, request for flight times, aircraft requisition, talent fee, mislaid guided missile or flying student conveniently made disappear.
And don’t get me started on the overtime it would have taken for the bomb squad to wire up the twin towers.It’s not only ridiculous to suggest there were hundreds of civil servants willing to cold heartedly slaughter thousands of their countrymen, it’s deeply offensive. And just quietly, you know how all of your friends have stopped arguing about your whack job theories? I promise you, it’s not assent, they’re just bored.
It’s not only ridiculous to suggest there were hundreds of civil servants willing to cold heartedly slaughter thousands of their countrymen, it’s deeply offensive.
NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THE REPLIES
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/10/22/september-11-attacks-were-not-a-us-plot-interweb/0
Comments
-
Logic, rationality and cogent arguments are impenetrable to the armour of many conspiracy theorists.
You'll find a lot of non CTers are easily won over by stupid videos like 'Loose Change'. A couple of work-mates were talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories recently and then I told them the theories were bunkum and have been debunked years ago. They rolled their eyes, called me gullible and close-minded, even though believing something based on flimsy arguments with no evidence whatsoever is exactly what I would call close-mindedness.
The below video is not specifically related to conspiracy theories but very relevant.
0 -
--Kaiser-- wrote: »Logic, rationality and cogent arguments are impenetrable to the armour of many conspiracy theorists.
You'll find a lot of non CTers are easily won over by stupid videos like 'Loose Change'. A couple of work-mates were talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories recently and then I told them the theories were bunkum and have been debunked years ago. They rolled their eyes, called me gullible and close-minded, even though believing something based on flimsy arguments with no evidence whatsoever is exactly what I would call close-mindedness.
The below video is not specifically related to conspiracy theories but very relevant.
Um, this might me relevant to you and your workmate but not to me.Don't assume to think you know what I know or do not know. That makes you close minded.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
--Kaiser-- wrote: »
The below video is not specifically related to conspiracy theories but very relevant.
huh? If it's not relevant to conspiracy theories then who or what is it relevant to? And why did you post it?0 -
--Kaiser-- wrote: »Logic, rationality and cogent arguments are impenetrable to the armour of many conspiracy theorists.
Meh, it's all about how you spin the logic, rationality and cogent arguments in order to make them seem the most logical, rational and cogent arguments. If you can't spin it enough, just keep repeating the lie, and sooner or later the 'majority' believe it and those who question it are wrong, of course. Conspiracy 101.
0 -
Meh, it's all about how you spin the logic, rationality and cogent arguments in order to make them seem the most logical, rational and cogent arguments. If you can't spin it enough, just keep repeating the lie, and sooner or later the 'majority' believe it and those who question it are wrong, of course. Conspiracy 101.
Hey long time there kernel.
This is why I'm not a fan of 'truth' sites. They have a nasty habit of leaving out important facts that don't support what they are claiming.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hey long time there kernel.
This is why I'm not a fan of 'truth' sites. They have a nasty habit of leaving out important facts that don't support what they are claiming.
Hello meglome, it has been a while. I hope you are well mate.
'Truth' sites leave out contradictory facts at times in order to further their own cause of course. But the much maligned 'mainstream media' do the same thing and also pander to their audiences. 2 sides of a coin. The media are too much obsessed with creating personalities and offering opinion than sticking to facts and remaining impartial.
Can any of you think of any equally cogent, logical and rational, yet opposing, arguments and wonder why you accept the argument you accept? If it's what most people accept, does it therefore appear more probable or acceptable to you? Maybe this is for a seperate thread, or maybe I'm becoming all psycho-babble lately!
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Hello meglome, it has been a while. I hope you are well mate.
'Truth' sites leave out contradictory facts at times in order to further their own cause of course. But the much maligned 'mainstream media' do the same thing and also pander to their audiences. 2 sides of a coin. The media are too much obsessed with creating personalities and offering opinion than sticking to facts and remaining impartial.
Can any of you think of any equally cogent, logical and rational, yet opposing, arguments and wonder why you accept the argument you accept? If it's what most people accept, does it therefore appear more probable or acceptable to you? Maybe this is for a seperate thread, or maybe I'm becoming all psycho-babble lately!
Yeah I'm good.
There is good and bad media out there, mainstream and non-mainstream. I mean Fox is a great example of a media company that will happily spin a story. I still say though that the mainstream media is far better at fact checking as a whole (and certainly as a story unfolds) than the non-mainstream media. Many of the 'truth' sites know full well they are leaving out important information which will contradict the theory they are pushing. Like Fox they are starting with a point of view then spinning the facts (or leaving out facts) to fit that view. Sure Fox are not alone in the mainstream media for doing that but all those sites supposedly championing 'truth' then blatantly ignoring the truth really pee me off.pablo_escobar wrote: »i checked out some debunking websites before and the authors merely offered an alternative hypothesis, no actual evidence there either unless you'd like to show me some concrete examples?
So you're ignoring the NIST reports?0 -
-
-
-
meglome wrote:So you're ignoring the NIST reports?
NIST refused to release a lot of evidence related to 9/11 until this year.
can you explain why it took a court case to force NIST into releasing their evidence?
for example, the following video is "new evidence" CNN discussing a 3rd explosion.
i never knew this was reported before.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEMLa-dxAOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8oAdvertisement