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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
9/11 attacks weren't a US plot !!
-
22-10-2010 4:21am#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
-
-
-
-
-
From a CT site: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
From a 'debunking' site: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
I've yet to see anyone explain all this away, not even close.
The question would be is it normal for all evidence to be released immediately. The answer to which is no.
I may be sounding like a broken record to some people here but absolutely no one is saying there were no sounds like explosions. Personally in my life I have heard numerous things that sounded like explosions but only twice was this caused by explosives. What do you think the plane hits sounded like? What do you think the debris hitting the ground sounded like? How many things do you think might explode in a big fire in a big building? I really cannot understand the issue. Are the people in the video who described 'explosions' also claiming they were caused by explosives? (Not as far as I can tell) How many of the NYFD firefighters are supporting the CT? (It's none btw).
Hi guys, good to be back.. I'm talkies missus Talkie is such a wonderfully well endowed beutiful man.. ahem :P
Megalome oh and king mob, as much as you annoy me, you both I will be respectful to you for this post.. It will probably be my last here (mob rule and what not).
Anywho Meg, I hope it ok to call you meg, I'm love Meg Ryan..
In the interest of fairness and research of ALL the evidenceThrow your eye on this clip/ I have read some ppls theories suggesting that it the explosions may be due to electrical transistors or something.
THis is quite obvious to most, even pre viewing this clip.. some others are slower to catch on... bless
FOR THE RECORD, I AM TALKIES WIFE, I HAVE HAD THIS OUT WITH MODS B4 AND THEY OK'D IT.0 -
SisterTrip wrote: »Hi guys, good to be back.. I'm talkies missus Talkie is such a wonderfully well endowed beutiful man.. ahem :P
Megalome oh and king mob, as much as you annoy me, you both I will be respectful to you for this post.. It will probably be my last here (mob rule and what not).
Anywho Meg, I hope it ok to call you meg, I'm love Meg Ryan..
In the interest of fairness and research of ALL the evidenceThrow your eye on this clip/ I have read some ppls theories suggesting that it the explosions may be due to electrical transistors or something.
THis is quite obvious to most, even pre viewing this clip.. some others are slower to catch on... bless
FOR THE RECORD, I AM TALKIES WIFE, I HAVE HAD THIS OUT WITH MODS B4 AND THEY OK'D IT.
If i'm annoying you by showing the many things that are obviously false to be false then I'm a content person. If less people are taken in by bullshít I'm a happy person.
Did you actually look at the footage? So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. Worse than that a lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Obviously lots of different things happened on the day. But logic would dictate that individual events either happened or they didn't. They can't half happen.
There are different types of logic.hehe pseudo-sceptics, haven't been called that name in ages - it's total bull btw. I didn't think anyone was arguing about the sound of explosions, I thought that was a given. The sound of explosions could indeed have been anything. An electrical transformer, glass breaking, a water heater. Look at every single controlled demolition video on the internet. There are hundreds of these and they all sound almost exactly the same. None of these sounds were recorded on 911 even with all the numerous recordings.
Yes, "coulda been" answer coming up again is undeniable evidence that there were no explosives used... :rolleyes:
I don't consider you to be a real sceptic.
skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
Conspiracy theories are not accepted beliefs.We either prove there was explosions (caused by explosives) or there weren't. We know that in an incident like 911, or in any big fire things do explode. Plenty of video on the internet of that too. So this is not under debate, by anyone other than the CT's that is.
That's exactly my point.
Earlier you were trumpeting on having proved no explosives were used yet still unable to explain what exactly caused the "explosions"
The reality is it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used.That's what the very detailed NIST reports are for. They spent years and millions of dollars producing it. It makes perfect sense too. If it was just my opinion I'd understand.
Just because NIST uses the "Coulda been.." explanation still doesn't prove anything.Well he was the lease holder, not sure why it was convenient that he owned the buildings though. He's just some random businessman. Unless of course you're referencing the fact he happened to be Jewish.
If you look at some of the links in the 'debunking' sites they have articles from before and after 911 which show Silverstein is really unlikely to have been involved and has lost a crap load of money from it. But why bother with fact.
He didn't lose money though, did he? he made money, but why bother with fact and instead try insinuate i have a prejudice against jewish people.As I've said I have no issue with video where people say they heard what they thought was explosions. Or on the day, in the confusion, they thought it might be explosives. How many of those same people, after the confusion has passed, still think there was explosives involved?
So what caused the sounds of explosions?
Simply accept you don't know the answer.Which NYFD people support the inside job? I'd genuinely like to know.
From the top of my head, Paul Isaac
He claims there were bombs in the towers, an inside job.
Surely, it can't be that difficult for you to search this information yourself?
I'm not posting links for you, that's lazy of anyone who demands it on such a huge subject.I'm fascinated you have such a low opinion of 'debunking' sites when they offer all the details. They don't misquote anyone, they don't take quotes out of context, they use references for all of the things they publish, they show all the available evidence. I can't seem to fault that. You are calling these sites shít but won't explain why, maybe you'd help me out here?
Debunking websites offer no more than an alternative hypothesis to what CT sites offer, I see no difference in either because neither prove anything.
Although, you're under some delusion debunking websites offer the truth. :pac:You know I'm worried about my mental health, I really don't know how many times I can point out that the word explosions and the word explosives mean different things. I'll take a little break.
As i reviewed the words I predicted you'd answer me with this kind of drivel.
You should stop being so pedantic for a start, you know exactly what I meant.Not impossible that is was, just lacks evidence.
Lacks evidence? .. there are many inconsistencies well documented.
Strange you wouldn't know about them.hehe okay if you say so. I would have thought it'd be simple to show that to me but whatever.
Debunking websites consist of opinions, the same as CT websites.
There's no difference between the 2, as I said.What are they?
Too many to mention.Should I be open minded on the tooth fairy as well? Take a look at that link in my sig.
The problem is your understanding of logic, meglome.
You don't accept 9/11 could possibly have been an inside job, how exactly is that open minded?
It's like the question I put towards Kaiser earlier on that ignorant video he posted which you funnily enough use as your signature.
Explain the logic of "you're either for us or against us"
Can I abstain? do I really have to pick sides here?
Am I forbidden from accepting 2 possibilities or maybe even 3 or 4 as the answer?
Perhaps I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, why is that difficult for you to accept?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
pablo_escobar wrote: »There are different types of logic.
No I'm pretty sure there isn't.pablo_escobar wrote: »I don't consider you to be a real sceptic.
skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
Conspiracy theories are not accepted beliefs.
Good that you know me so well... oh wait..
Some things in life are fairly self evident. I can't prove gravity exists but I'm pretty confident that if I jump out my window I will fall the three floors to the ground below. So I'm general sceptical of things that lack proof, doesn't mean I go around being an idiot.pablo_escobar wrote: »That's exactly my point.
Earlier you were trumpeting on having proved no explosives were used yet still unable to explain what exactly caused the "explosions"
The reality is it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used.
Just because NIST uses the "Coulda been.." explanation still doesn't prove anything.
As I've said I'm not making claims as such. The NIST report is full of evidence and science and I believe it. No NIST were not gods and can only report using the best information available. You should probably look up how a court of law works though as you don't seem to know. All I'm doing here is putting forward other logical explanations for what the CT'ers are claiming. I only need to show alternatives, reasonable doubt if you will.pablo_escobar wrote: »He didn't lose money though, did he? he made money, but why bother with fact and instead try insinuate i have a prejudice against jewish people.
Well if you read the articles written before 911 and after it really doesn't look like he made money or was involved. Course they are on a 'debunker' site which your superior powers tell you are not worthy. Here's a link anyway. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.htmlpablo_escobar wrote: »So what caused the sounds of explosions?
Simply accept you don't know the answer.
Of course I don't know. However since there is no evidence of explosives I can surmise what the sounds were. Then again I'm not making any claims about explosives.pablo_escobar wrote: »From the top of my head, Paul Isaac
He claims there were bombs in the towers, an inside job.
Surely, it can't be that difficult for you to search this information yourself?
I'm not posting links for you, that's lazy of anyone who demands it on such a huge subject.
Yeah you're right I should. This Paul Isaac's?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432&pl=true#
From 6:48 to about 12:00.
Anyone else?pablo_escobar wrote: »Debunking websites offer no more than an alternative hypothesis to what CT sites offer, I see no difference in either because neither prove anything.
Although, you're under some delusion debunking websites offer the truth. :pac:
But the 'debunking' site are not making the claims, the people making the claims need to prove them not the other way around. The 'debunking' sites also believe the NIST reports and show the errors and lies in what the CT'ers are claiming.pablo_escobar wrote: »As i reviewed the words I predicted you'd answer me with this kind of drivel.
You should stop being so pedantic for a start, you know exactly what I meant.
Drivel? Pedantic? Either it can be proved the explosions were caused by explosives or it can't. The CT'er need to support their claims. There is no evidence for explosives. All the talk about explosions in the lobby and with one video it can be seen there was absolutely no explosion in the lobby - fact.pablo_escobar wrote: »Lacks evidence? .. there are many inconsistencies well documented.
Strange you wouldn't know about them.
Oh with your superior knowledge you should be able to help me out?pablo_escobar wrote: »Debunking websites consist of opinions, the same as CT websites.
There's no difference between the 2, as I said.
Actually I gave you links to the pentagon attack, which have eye witness testimonies, pictures of the plane parts and other details. So not opinion at all, provable fact.pablo_escobar wrote: »Too many to mention.
You'll go into these long posts but won't even mention one. O-k-a-y.pablo_escobar wrote: »The problem is your understanding of logic, meglome.
No I'm pretty confident my understanding of logic is fine. I understand that the people making claims should back them up. Simple really.pablo_escobar wrote: »You don't accept 9/11 could possibly have been an inside job, how exactly is that open minded?
You must have missed above where I said I didn't rule it out but there is no evidence. Innuendo and nit picking are not evidence of anything.pablo_escobar wrote: »It's like the question I put towards Kaiser earlier on that ignorant video he posted which you funnily enough use as your signature.
Why is the video ignorant. It logically explains that not believing in any auld shíte isn't closed minded.pablo_escobar wrote: »Explain the logic of "you're either for us or against us"
Can I abstain? do I really have to pick sides here?
Am I forbidden from accepting 2 possibilities or maybe even 3 or 4 as the answer?
Not at all. But specific events either happened one way or another, logic dictates this. You claim you've not made up your mind but at the same time you don't appear to believe the NIST report. The people putting forward the alternatives to the NIST reports are mostly CT'ers so this would suggest you do have a side.pablo_escobar wrote: »Perhaps I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, why is that difficult for you to accept?
It's not even slightly difficult for me to believe but I've asked you for specifics and you won't give me any.0 -
No I'm pretty sure there isn't.
Maybe it was debris that sounded like an explosion when it hit the ground, maybe it was a bomb, maybe those people imagined hearing an explosion which was really just someone slamming a door. :P
Who really knows?Some things in life are fairly self evident. I can't prove gravity exists but I'm pretty confident that if I jump out my window I will fall the three floors to the ground below. So I'm general sceptical of things that lack proof, doesn't mean I go around being an idiot.
People believe in the concept of love, does lacking scientific evidence mean it doesn't exist?As I've said I'm not making claims as such. The NIST report is full of evidence and science and I believe it. No NIST were not gods and can only report using the best information available. You should probably look up how a court of law works though as you don't seem to know. All I'm doing here is putting forward other logical explanations for what the CT'ers are claiming. I only need to show alternatives, reasonable doubt if you will.
It's funny you mention court when it was actually a lawsuit which forced NIST to hand over 3TB of data used in their investigations they previously refused to release for analysis.
And before you predictably argue "that makes sense" - tell me with your own superior knowledge when they planned to release it.
I'm a little lost on that one..Well if you read the articles written before 911 and after it really doesn't look like he made money or was involved. Course they are on a 'debunker' site which your superior powers tell you are not worthy. Here's a link anyway.
silverstein stands to make a huge profit from the damages of 9/11
he made a deal to lease the trade center for 99 years at a cost of $3.2 billion.
he was already awarded $4.1 billion for the insurance but is looking for a further $8.8 billion in damages with court date set for next year.
So while he probably has lost money, he stands to make a huge sum which dwarfs those losses if the court rules in his favour next year, i'm pretty sure they will.
in regards to the cost of rebuilding, arguing he will lose money..only a percentage of damages will go towards rebuilding the towers, the rest will come from liberty bonds.
for example, WTC 7, silverstein was awarded $800 million damages but only $450 million will go towards rebuilding the proposed $1.86 billion project.
the rest of the money will come from tax payers...he hasn't lost anything, he's gained.
I'm not saying he was involved, but he stands to make a lot of money should the court rule in his favour next year.Yeah you're right I should. This Paul Isaac's?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64432&pl=true#
From 6:48 to about 12:00.
Anyone else?
I fail to see the significance of this video clip but I knew you'd lift it straight off some crap debunking blog or website.
All he says in the video is that the authors of loose change are being disrespectful trying to promote their film during a time of memorial for the 347 FDNY workers who died that day.
He feels it's insensitive to the victims families accusing the government of being involved, that's all..nothing more.
He doesn't once say that he disagrees with the CT, just that their cause is hopeless.
What was I supposed to see exactly?Drivel? Pedantic? Either it can be proved the explosions were caused by explosives or it can't. The CT'er need to support their claims. There is no evidence for explosives. All the talk about explosions in the lobby and with one video it can be seen there was absolutely no explosion in the lobby - fact.
I think you're stealing my argument now
I've already made it clear umpteen times it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used on 9/11.
Many people said they heard "explosions" - that's all we know.
If you argue there were no explosives used, prove it.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEMLa-dxAOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement