911 Truth Movement

[tigersnake]

If corruption is alive and kicking around the world, especially in the US, then a conspiracy must be close to being true.

Where do you start with a statement like this? Corruption is most definately alive and kicking, but I don't draw the same conclusion. And what does 'close to being true' mean? There was either a conspiracy or there wasn't.

Either a bunch of men got together and planned to demolish some huge buildings in the middle of Manhattan, organise some suicide plane hijacking bombers, and create a religeous fundamentalist baddie to pin it on. When you write it like that it sounds like it could maybe be remotely possible. But when you start thinking about the actual logistical and planning detail and scale required, its ludicrous. The US government couldn't even organise planting some WMDs. A lot of people would have been required to be involved, people talk, people get slack, people change. Small scale conspiracies with very few people involved are exposed all the time, the Visy paper collusion, Lance Armstrong, Kurt Tippett, WMDs in Iraq.

Or the alternative is the official explanation. A crazy fundamentalist warlord took advantage of some lax security and got lucky.

 

[tigersnake]

Is the US GOVT hiding Elvis as well, maybe he set the explosives for the controlled demolition.

Yeah. Elvis exploded the WTC to as a distraction to halt the creeping influence of the metric system. Seriously though I can understand why people look for conspiracies for Sept 11. It was a shocking, catastrophic, disturbing event.

 

[Disco08]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

Sounds pretty straight forward to me but then I'm not one to don aluminum foil hats.

Straight forward? For a structural engineer specialising in fires in steel framed skyscrapers perhaps.

Many many more experts ridicule the conspiracies. A quick google search will yield plenty.

Where's the conspiracy in a large group of experts asserting the official report is wrong and calling for a re-examination of the evidence?

To get away from WTC7 for a second, my favourite 9/11 fact is that the entire NORAD interior defense squadron was sent to a training drill hundreds of miles away to practice scenarios almost identical to those that took place. This was the only time in history no interior defense jets were left to defend the world's most sensitive airspace.

 

[Baloo]

Straight forward? For a structural engineer specialising in fires in steel framed skyscrapers perhaps.

you don't need to be a structural engineer to understand this

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34][35] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[36] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[37] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[38] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[39] At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.[2][40] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

Where's the conspiracy in a large group of experts asserting the official report is wrong and calling for a re-examination of the evidence?

Large in what context ? A quick google would indicate that while there is a group asking for re-examination, the overwhelming majority of experts are content with the findings. Plenty of doctors and scientists out there believe in Intelligent Design too.

 

[Disco08]

Of course you do. How is the layman supposed to know how much fire is enough to make a steel framed skyscraper pancake into itself at freefall speed? Without knowing that how can you accept those statements when actual experts have read them and said they're complete *smile*? What were the explosions multiple witnesses report hearing from WTC7 and why aren't they even mentioned in official reports? Don't they need to be explained as part of the evidence surrounding the collapse?

Actually, *smile* all scientists expert in relevant fields believe in ID or even question TTOE. It's a poor analogy.

 

[tigersnake]

Of course you do. How is the layman supposed to know how much fire is enough to make a steel framed skyscraper pancake into itself at freefall speed? Without knowing that how can you accept those statements when actual experts have read them and said they're complete *smile*? What were the explosions multiple witnesses report hearing from WTC7 and why aren't they even mentioned in official reports? Don't they need to be explained as part of the evidence surrounding the collapse?

Actually, *smile* all scientists expert in relevant fields believe in ID or even question TTOE. It's a poor analogy.

OK, even though most experts accept the official conclusion, apparently there are some who question it. For the sake of argument lets take that as read. What about my point of the logistical impossibility of organising and maintaining secrecy of such a huge and complex conspiracy plan? Thats where conspiracies really fall over.

BTW, the official report does address the possibility of controlled demolition and rejects it. Thats the key point. The charge that they ignored eyewitnesses apparently hearing explosions is irrelevant, the result of those sounds, if taken to be true, is that the building was exploded. That was investigated, its a classic conspiracy red herring

(doesn't seem unusual or sinister to me anyway with all the chaos, smoke, sirens, stress creaking of buildings etc, people would have heard and thought they heard all kinds of things, but anyway)

 

[Baloo]

Of course you do. How is the layman supposed to know how much fire is enough to make a steel framed skyscraper pancake into itself at freefall speed?

Wikipedia has obviously dumbed it down for the lay person. I understand the articles layman explanation of what happened. I'm not in a position to dispute it and I've found that for the most part Wikipedia is fairly neutral on items like this.

Without knowing that how can you accept those statements when actual experts have read them and said they're complete *smile*?

I accept the statements of the experts which are happy with the conclusions. Experts which far outnumber those that said they are complete *smile*.

Actually, *smile* all scientists expert in relevant fields believe in ID or even question TTOE. It's a poor analogy.

It's not a poor analogy at all. Take any position in any debate and you will have experts taking opposite sides. The ID analogy is relevant because I think the odds of WTC7 being blown up by the US Government and that being kept secret for as long as it has is as likely as ID.

 

[jb03]

OK, even though most experts accept the official conclusion, apparently there are some who question it. For the sake of argument lets take that as read. What about my point of the logistical impossibility of organising and maintaining secrecy of such a huge and complex conspiracy plan? Thats where conspiracies really fall over.

BTW, the official report does address the possibility of controlled demolition and rejects it. Thats the key point. The charge that they ignored eyewitnesses apparently hearing explosions is irrelevant, the result of those sounds, if taken to be true, is that the building was exploded. That was investigated, its a classic conspiracy red herring

(doesn't seem unusual or sinister to me anyway with all the chaos, smoke, sirens, stress creaking of buildings etc, people would have heard and thought they heard all kinds of things, but anyway)

Good posting on this thread snake, keep it up. Baloo too.

 

[Disco08]

Wikipedia has obviously dumbed it down for the lay person. I understand the articles layman explanation of what happened. I'm not in a position to dispute it and I've found that for the most part Wikipedia is fairly neutral on items like this.
I accept the statements of the experts which are happy with the conclusions. Experts which far outnumber those that said they are complete *smile*.
It's not a poor analogy at all. Take any position in any debate and you will have experts taking opposite sides. The ID analogy is relevant because I think the odds of WTC7 being blown up by the US Government and that being kept secret for as long as it has is as likely as ID.

Odds make your analogy relevant? I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. ID has no basis in scientific evidence and isn't supported at all by relevant scientific experts. The theory that WTC7 collapsed by controlled demolition is only based on scientific evidence and is supported by thousands of relevant scientific experts. If you want to just accept Wiki even though you don't even know who wrote the content, that's fine, just don't pass it off as a reasonable way to draw a conclusion.

OK, even though most experts accept the official conclusion, apparently there are some who question it. For the sake of argument lets take that as read. What about my point of the logistical impossibility of organising and maintaining secrecy of such a huge and complex conspiracy plan? Thats where conspiracies really fall over.

BTW, the official report does address the possibility of controlled demolition and rejects it. Thats the key point. The charge that they ignored eyewitnesses apparently hearing explosions is irrelevant, the result of those sounds, if taken to be true, is that the building was exploded. That was investigated, its a classic conspiracy red herring

(doesn't seem unusual or sinister to me anyway with all the chaos, smoke, sirens, stress creaking of buildings etc, people would have heard and thought they heard all kinds of things, but anyway)

Why does ths conspiracy need to involve huge amounts of people or be particularly complex? At heart it's a plot to allow a discovered plan to fly planed into targets to happen by taking away the safeguards in place to stop it. How much power would that actually take? How much power do you think the families that own most of the world's money and have the US in self perpetuating debt have?

BTW, it's not "some". It's nearly 2000. Architects, engineers and demolition experts. Sure there are tens of thousands of these people in the US but it's a patriotic place. How many of those not supporting this group have actually looked at the evidence closely?

 

[tigersnake]

Odds make your analogy relevant? I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. ID has no basis in scientific evidence and isn't supported at all by relevant scientific experts. The theory that WTC7 collapsed by controlled demolition is only based on scientific evidence and is supported by thousands of relevant scientific experts. If you want to just accept Wiki even though you don't even know who wrote the content, that's fine, just don't pass it off as a reasonable way to draw a conclusion.

Why does ths conspiracy need to involve huge amounts of people or be particularly complex? At heart it's a plot to allow a discovered plan to fly planed into targets to happen by taking away the safeguards in place to stop it. How much power would that actually take? How much power do you think the families that own most of the world's money and have the US in self perpetuating debt have?

BTW, it's not "some". It's nearly 2000. Architects, engineers and demolition experts. Sure there are tens of thousands of these people in the US but it's a patriotic place. How many of those not supporting this group have actually looked at the evidence closely?

Baloos analogy is perfectly valid.

On the last 2 paras, are you fair dinkum? The conspiracy, if true, would have involved a lot of people to be successful. That is beyond debate I'm afraid. And I've made the point that powerful people have attempted far less complex conspiracies and come undone, you've ignored that point.

As for the last para, your 2000 experts (I wish I had time to check all their credentials, that would tell a tale I'd put $ on it) all looked at the evidence closely, but my 10,000 experts or howerver many support the official version, they all skimmed it or didn't read it? You are actually suggesting that?

 

[Disco08]

Don't just make an assertion and not back it up. How is his analogy valid given the points I made? A better analogy might be Constantine's conspiray to turn falsehoods into fact to support his desire to control the masses.

The problem with saying conspiracies don't work is that you don't know when they have. Sure you can point to ones that have failed, but how do you know how many have succeeded? And yes, I'm fair dinkum. If someone high up wanted to let these terrorists slip under their noses and accomplish their objectives how many people really need to know what's actually going on? Evidence exists that the CIA/FBI/SS were aware of highly increased terrorist chatter leading up to 9/11 yet the entire NORAD defense mechanism was purposely disabled. Why?

As to your experts, I'm suggesting that when an expert puts his name to a petition they've studied the evidence closely. Can you find me a petition of experts that have signed a similar petition supporting the NIST report? The point is that if there are 10000 experts who haven't supported the "conspiracy" it doesn't mean they all disagree with the scietific points being made.

 

[tigersnake]

I'm done

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

Good posting on this thread snake, keep it up. Baloo too.

TigerForce and Disco08 are doing a good job too. Go guys!

 

[Disco08]

I'm done

Why?

 

[tigersnake]

Why?

Just going round in circles. I've gone as far as I can go unless I started researching the topic, which I don't have the time or motivation to do. Even then I think you'd keep on believing. I understand your point about conspiracies that we don't know about, or that you aren't paranoid if everyone is out to get you, but I just don't buy it. No evidence for it, and plenty of evidence of failed conspiracies. People just aren't that well organised, disciplined, united.

 

[Disco08]

Fair enough. The average group of people aren't that organised. People with a lot of power and greedy motives have proved to be highly organised time and time again. You think the highest powers in the US (not just the politicians) have been up front and truthful about everything that's happened in their history?

I mildly resent your accustion that I'd beleive blindly even if you showed me some great evidence that you managed to research. Pretty condescending considering you've just admitted to not researching the subject at all.

 

[Willo]

Just one question to those who believe it wasn't the work of osama bin Laden/Al Qaida?
Who do you think WAS responsible?

 

[Liverpool]

Fair enough. The average group of people aren't that organised. People with a lot of power and greedy motives have proved to be highly organised time and time again. You think the highest powers in the US (not just the politicians) have been up front and truthful about everything that's happened in their history?

I mildly resent your accustion that I'd beleive blindly even if you showed me some great evidence that you managed to research. Pretty condescending considering you've just admitted to not researching the subject at all.

Let me ask you this...why would the Americans deliberately kills thousands of people and destroy the Twin Towers in the process?
What was the point behind it??

 

[Disco08]

The war on terror. Do you know how much a war like that can make for the families that own the companies that supply it? Do you know that every time the US needs more money the same families give it to them as a debt that cannot be paid off?

Just one question to those who believe it wasn't the work of osama bin Laden/Al Qaida?
Who do you think WAS responsible?

I don't think anyone knows the fully correct answer to that. Just because many of the facts don't add up in doesn't mean those that point that out have to have all the answers.

 

[tigersnake]

Fair enough. The average group of people aren't that organised. People with a lot of power and greedy motives have proved to be highly organised time and time again. You think the highest powers in the US (not just the politicians) have been up front and truthful about everything that's happened in their history?

I mildly resent your accustion that I'd beleive blindly even if you showed me some great evidence that you managed to research. Pretty condescending considering you've just admitted to not researching the subject at all.

I've researched it, not in depth. The topic was interesting a few years ago. Its run out of steam now. I was in NY for the S11 memorial service in 2010. Amazing experience. The truth dudes were out in force. I was amazed at how they were 100% tolerated. Army, cops, firemen, heaps of people like me who take it at face value, all tolerant. I still have the Truth DVD they gave me somewhere.

Willo and Liverpool, the motivation for the conspiracy comes in large part from the profiteering that resulted from the Iraq/ Afganistan wars. Donald Rumsfeld, who many, myself included, believed was the 'real' president. His company Haliburton made billions out or war contracts. Plenty of $$ motivation.

Personally, I'd challenge anyone to read 'All the President's Men' and still believe it would be possible to execute such a conspiracy and keep it quiet for 11 years