Conspiracy's?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Eyewitness reports contradict so much what the media says.

And the second part is just a question. How did the 3rd tower fall? Trainers of the pilots saying they couldn't fly a Cessna or whatever for **** how could they pilot that airbus

That's to be expected, everyone is going to have different takes on what happens. Plus media will always throw a spin on it.

I thought it was a combination of fire and structural damage from the other towers coming down. Damage from strikes on the building, I'd also suspect that the foundations would have taken a pounding with the other two coming down (but that's speculation).

On the pilots. It could be, in part, the trainers trying to clear themselves "don't blame us for their flying", or they could have always obtained training elsewhere too.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

i've never understood/believed the political motivation for it, but all the stuff about how the buildings collapsed, stuff about bombs in the basement and all that, i can't help but believe based on the stuff ive seen.

Most of that stuff's been pretty well rebutted by everyone from the engineering community to the chemistry community. A lot of truthers have a confirmation bias and only seek out the information that supports their theories. A lot of it's also just plain fallacious thinking (e.g., "The owner of the building had a dermatology appointment that day. Ergo, he knew the building was going to be attacked") or the principle of falsifiablity is taken to such an absurd extreme that it almost becomes denying the antecedent ("Nobody has video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Ergo, despite plane wreakage being present, we still can't reasonably conclude an airplane made the big hole").

Reputable sources? There are a very, very small amount of people who have the specialized knowledge to have a credible opinion on the nature of how and why the buildings collapsed that day who hold that it was a conspiracy. The vast majority of people claiming a conspiracy are on the fringe and their primary platforms are blogs, Alex Jones, and Coast to Coast A.M. You're not going to find them presenting at highly respected scientific conferences or publishing in peer reviewed journals.

I always say this when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories: We had a President who got his dingle shined in the Oval Office and he couldn't keep that a secret. It was headline news for months. You're tellin' me that 9/11 was orchestrated by some clandestine group of people who weren't Al Qaeda and yet nobody who was part of what would require the participation of hundreds - if not thousands - of people hasn't come forth? Ooooo-kay.

With that said, I do not deny for a second that 9/11 was used as a political chess piece afterwards. But to talk any more about that would be a Lobby topic.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Eyewitness reports contradict so much what the media says.

I know you don't like it when I come on and disagree with you, but I had a girlfriend who was a legal psychologist whose primary research area dealt with race and eyewitness reports, so I learned a bit about it. Additionally, I once worked a day gig that required me to interview witnesses and draft affadavits.

Between learning the research about eye witness reports and actually having experience with dealing with eye witness reports, I'd put about as much stock into them as JimmyM denouncing Ampeg as his favorite amp company. They're not very reliable, and that's an understatement.

 

[basscooker]

zeitgeist. see it if you haven't. just don't be drunk around guns when you do.

and give it a bit. the first little while is like a review, nothing open minded folks haven't "known" for a while. then it gets interesting.

 

[GregC]

Most of that stuff's been pretty well rebutted by everyone from the engineering community to the chemistry community. A lot of truthers have a confirmation bias and only seek out the information that supports their theories. A lot of it's also just plain fallacious thinking (e.g., "The owner of the building had a dermatology appointment that day. Ergo, he knew the building was going to be attacked") or the principle of falsifiablity is taken to such an absurd extreme that it almost becomes denying the antecedent ("Nobody has video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Ergo, despite plane wreakage being present, we still can't reasonably conclude an airplane made the big hole").

Reputable sources? There are a very, very small amount of people who have the specialized knowledge to have a credible opinion on the nature of how and why the buildings collapsed that day who hold that it was a conspiracy. The vast majority of people claiming a conspiracy are on the fringe and their primary platforms are blogs, Alex Jones, and Coast to Coast A.M. You're not going to find them presenting at highly respected scientific conferences or publishing in peer reviewed journals.

I always say this when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories: We had a President who got his dingle shined in the Oval Office and he couldn't keep that a secret. It was headline news for months. You're tellin' me that 9/11 was orchestrated by some clandestine group of people who weren't Al Qaeda and yet nobody who was part of what would require the participation of hundreds - if not thousands - of people hasn't come forth? Ooooo-kay.

With that said, I do not deny for a second that 9/11 was used as a political chess piece afterwards. But to talk any more about that would be a Lobby topic.

Yes, thank you. Here's one excellent breakdown from people who have that specialized knowledge: Invalid Link Removed

I know you don't like it when I come on and disagree with you, but I had a girlfriend who was a legal psychologist whose primary research area dealt with race and eyewitness reports, so I learned a bit about it. Additionally, I once worked a day gig that required me to interview witnesses and draft affadavits.

Between learning the research about eye witness reports and actually having experience with dealing with eye witness reports, I'd put about as much stock into them as JimmyM denouncing Ampeg as his favorite amp company. They're not very reliable, and that's an understatement.

This is also what I was coming in here to say. Eyewitness reports are tremendously unreliable.

 

[Sequimite]

This is my signature on other forums:

"Our reason is quite satisfied, in 999 cases out of every 1000 of us, if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by someone else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case."
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897

As mentioned before, if you choose to put your faith in a minority theory rather than the scientific consensus you have that right. But, it is not good rational thinking. It is commonplace in this time to believe that the majority of scientists are in a huge conspiracy rather than accept the greatly more likely idea that the majority of experts are correct and that if you spent eight years earning a PhD and twenty more years in research you would then understand why they are right.

 

[bluesblaster]

There are those that still dont believe we went to the moon and back, a few times actually, So...whadya gonna do :hmm

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Odd, this is very similar to thread in the Lobby. As i said there, I'm not sold entirely on the the idea that 9/11 was an inside job or something other than what is the standard belief that it was a straight up attack coordinated by Al Quaeda and hijacked planes. However, I have recently moved from someone who was a complete undeniable skeptic of any 9/11 conspiracy theories to someone who has recently opened my mind to some of the theories as possibilities.

There are several things that I guess have always bothered me.

First the plane that crashed in PA. While there was a lot of evidence that has been released in regards to cell phone calls, and there's the whole tragic story of the heroic takeover of the plane that sadly failed to actually recover the plane, I can't shake this idea that it was actually shot down. I remember hearing early reports stating that it had been shot down (which is completely understandable considering the circumstances) then it started becoming the story that became a centerpiece of patriotism that became a battle cry. It has always settled weird with me, right from the notion of the cell phones working on the plane, all the way to how I never heard anything else discrediting that live report I heard that it was shot down. In this case, the motives behind fabricating a story seem clear. I could see the reasoning behind why they would possibly think it necessary to protect the public from the idea that we shot down a plane of innocent civilians, but I also think most of America would have understood why we did it since we had two planes fly into the wtc, and a plane in the pentagon. A split decision was required. This would also explain the lack of wreckage (although a nose dive might be possible too but I have absolutely no expertise in this stuff). However, if it the story was made up, I find it despicable that it was used as nothing more than a propaganda piece.

Second, the neatness of the collapse of the towers. This has always bothered me. I would understand the heat and/or impact causing the towers to topple over on itself, but the way both towers collapsed just like you see with a controlled demolition has always been something I've wondered about. Then tower 7 going down, again in a neat stacked collapse. It all makes me wonder why they put in so much effort to demo a building if this is how they collapse anyway. Although to be fair, I thought I read somewhere a long time ago that they chose to demo tower 7 because it was compromised, although the fact it happened so quickly made me wonder how they made the decision and got it set up for demo so quickly. I recently saw this clip, and it has kind of confirmed some of my suspicions (yes it has the cheesy conspiracy music) but I found some of it compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_O6fFa3pNA&feature=related

Now, I'm still not sure why, or who would orchestrate such a thing. It's possible the terrorists had a ground crew. It's also possible that it was our government, but I'm not sure why. The military industrial complex and it's influence over our government (and the then current administration) comes to mind, but I'm totally speculating. Beyond that I really have no idea why.

 

[dj150888]

Occam's Razor is a very useful tool in considering this.

On one side, we can consider that the US government, who up until now, have repeatedly proven that they can't keep their own private lives covered up, let alone something of this magnitude, were responsible. This would have required the co-operation of hundreds of people directly. Indirectly, thousands of people would have to be paid off. All those experts explaining why it all happened exactly as they'd expect? Paid off. Thousands of people killed. Millions of witnesses. Out of the thousands approached by the government to be involved with this, not ONE has come out and even said they were contacted? Not one had an attack of conscience? Not one person decided their own comfort wasn't as important as letting the people know?

Option two- a bunch of terrorists, blinded by religious zeal, commited suicide in a manner which guaranteed a huge amount of collateral damage. These people didn't need to know the HARD parts of flying a plane, just how to point it at something and keep flying. The US goverment may have manipulated the situation post-attack, to suit their own political machinations, but weren't directly involved in the attack itself.


Yeah, the US government might be a bit shady, but you don't think out of the THOUSANDs it would take to cover this up, even one would have spoken up? That's delusional.

 

[FREAKYSTLYEY]

Wow this threads actually doing ok. I always denied any conspiracy theory's about 9/11, Untill recently...

Kinda off/on topic, have y'all ever seen the video during the attacks, with George bush in the class room? I'm no expert, maybe yrs not even from that sane day, but it's very creepy none the less for the kids to be shouting" plane must hit steel " not in order of course... I'm not saying its any part of the conspiracy I'm just saying its creepy...

http://youtu.be/AEIpb6agqFg

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Occam's Razor is a very useful tool in considering this.

On one side, we can consider that the US government, who up until now, have repeatedly proven that they can't keep their own private lives covered up, let alone something of this magnitude, were responsible. This would have required the co-operation of hundreds of people directly. Indirectly, thousands of people would have to be paid off. All those experts explaining why it all happened exactly as they'd expect? Paid off. Thousands of people killed. Millions of witnesses. Out of the thousands approached by the government to be involved with this, not ONE has come out and even said they were contacted? Not one had an attack of conscience? Not one person decided their own comfort wasn't as important as letting the people know?

Option two- a bunch of terrorists, blinded by religious zeal, commited suicide in a manner which guaranteed a huge amount of collateral damage. These people didn't need to know the HARD parts of flying a plane, just how to point it at something and keep flying. The US goverment may have manipulated the situation post-attack, to suit their own political machinations, but weren't directly involved in the attack itself.

Yeah, the US government might be a bit shady, but you don't think out of the THOUSANDs it would take to cover this up, even one would have spoken up? That's delusional.

See I don't think it needed to take thousands to take down the towers. Just a coordinated team that prepped the building beforehand. But your point is valid regarding loved ones receiving phone calls and such. Especially on the PA plane. Like I said, there are some details that just don't sit well with me. It's also very possible that I just don't have the knowledge to understand some of it too, like I'm not a demolition expert, so I have no way to dispute or corroborate the demo guys in that video either.

Additionally, it's also possible it wasn't the government and it was just a bigger terrorist team than just the guys in the air.

 

[NelsonNelson]

I will say that I know for a fact, with family and friends in the government, that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9-11. The hole was the size of a small helicopter/missile. And a LOT of people I knew personally were pissed when they attempted to tell people it was a large plane including my own father, a retired Marine and government employee.

I knew a guy who actually up and quit the government, who worked in the Pentagon, upon finding out we were all lied to and I asked him why he was leaving such a lucrative position and he said he was not going to work for a country that lies to it's people.

This isn't a rumor. Now the rest of the information I don't know much about directly but it's always made me wonder why they would need to lie about something and who actually orchestrated it.

 

[Sequimite]

I will say that I know for a fact, with family and friends in the government, that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9-11.

I'm not familiar with this claim. How does this theory account for the missing plane and passengers?

 

[1958Bassman]

There are several things that I guess have always bothered me.

First the plane that crashed in PA. While there was a lot of evidence that has been released in regards to cell phone calls, and there's the whole tragic story of the heroic takeover of the plane that sadly failed to actually recover the plane, I can't shake this idea that it was actually shot down. I remember hearing early reports stating that it had been shot down (which is completely understandable considering the circumstances) then it started becoming the story that became a centerpiece of patriotism that became a battle cry. It has always settled weird with me, right from the notion of the cell phones working on the plane, all the way to how I never heard anything else discrediting that live report I heard that it was shot down. In this case, the motives behind fabricating a story seem clear. I could see the reasoning behind why they would possibly think it necessary to protect the public from the idea that we shot down a plane of innocent civilians, but I also think most of America would have understood why we did it since we had two planes fly into the wtc, and a plane in the pentagon. A split decision was required. This would also explain the lack of wreckage (although a nose dive might be possible too but I have absolutely no expertise in this stuff). However, if it the story was made up, I find it despicable that it was used as nothing more than a propaganda piece.

Second, the neatness of the collapse of the towers. This has always bothered me. I would understand the heat and/or impact causing the towers to topple over on itself, but the way both towers collapsed just like you see with a controlled demolition has always been something I've wondered about. Then tower 7 going down, again in a neat stacked collapse. It all makes me wonder why they put in so much effort to demo a building if this is how they collapse anyway. Although to be fair, I thought I read somewhere a long time ago that they chose to demo tower 7 because it was compromised, although the fact it happened so quickly made me wonder how they made the decision and got it set up for demo so quickly. I recently saw this clip, and it has kind of confirmed some of my suspicions (yes it has the cheesy conspiracy music) but I found some of it compelling.

Now, I'm still not sure why, or who would orchestrate such a thing. It's possible the terrorists had a ground crew. It's also possible that it was our government, but I'm not sure why. The military industrial complex and it's influence over our government (and the then current administration) comes to mind, but I'm totally speculating. Beyond that I really have no idea why.

First, if the PA jet had been shot down, debris from the device fired at it would have been found under that location, on the ground. Small pieces, definitely, but some larger pieces would have survived. Debris from the jet would have been found, too- it's impossible to shoot down a jet and have all of the material remain intact. The debris field would have been much larger. Nobody came forward to say large parts landed on their house or car, etc.

Second, I would hope the designers of the WTC took future demolition or possible collapse into account. When I studied architecture, we discussed certain buildings and how they were constructed. The WTC had a main frame near the center where the elevators and electrical/mechanical systems rose from the basement areas. The outer frame was meant to be as light as possible, to allow as much open space inside as possible. This being the case, I would have thought that more of the center framework would have been standing after the collapses, but that's for the structural analysts to comment on. The impact from the crashes blew off most of the insulation covering the structural framing members, exposing all of it to the heat from the fire. Contrary to what Rosie O'Donnell says, the heat from jet fuel and the remaining building contents is definitely sufficient to affect structural steel. During a fire, the heat causes horizontal members to sag and attachment points to soften enough that the shear forces acting on them cause failure. This happens when the steel starts to become elastic and once the floors above the gaping holes fell onto the floor below, it just continued to take out each successive floor's connecting points.

WRT building 7 falling/being taken down, I can't see how the main towers could fall so close and NOT affect nearby foundations, even though they go deep into the ground, to bedrock (bedrock, unless they used pilings or caissons).

I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone in government was fairly sure it would happen, but I don't think they would be so callous that they would sacrifice 3000+ people to find a reason to start a war. If they did this and don't care, they should all be ground into a fine paste.

 

[1958Bassman]

I will say that I know for a fact, with family and friends in the government, that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9-11. The hole was the size of a small helicopter/missile. And a LOT of people I knew personally were pissed when they attempted to tell people it was a large plane including my own father, a retired Marine and government employee.

I knew a guy who actually up and quit the government, who worked in the Pentagon, upon finding out we were all lied to and I asked him why he was leaving such a lucrative position and he said he was not going to work for a country that lies to it's people.

This isn't a rumor. Now the rest of the information I don't know much about directly but it's always made me wonder why they would need to lie about something and who actually orchestrated it.

Facts are what you find, measure or see, not what someone tells you. That's called hearsay. How is it that nobody saw a missile flying toward the Pentagon? It couldn't have come in on a low angle without being seen AND heard by thousands.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

First, if the PA jet had been shot down, debris from the device fired at it would have been found under that location, on the ground. Small pieces, definitely, but some larger pieces would have survived. Debris from the jet would have been found, too- it's impossible to shoot down a jet and have all of the material remain intact. The debris field would have been much larger. Nobody came forward to say large parts landed on their house or car, etc.

Laser beams

 

[1958Bassman]

Additionally, it's also possible it wasn't the government and it was just a bigger terrorist team than just the guys in the air.

With the willingness of suicide bombers to die during their attacks, it's possible they were inside the main towers when the jets hit, dressed as maintenance or utility workers. However, if they were all Middle Eastern, someone would have been suspicious seeing who was there that morning. I would guess they would have had underground loading docks to use for ingress.

 

[NelsonNelson]

Facts are what you find, measure or see, not what someone tells you. That's called hearsay. How is it that nobody saw a missile flying toward the Pentagon? It couldn't have come in on a low angle without being seen AND heard by thousands.

Hearsay from my own father and personal family friend? Ok. My dad called me that day and said, "A missile just hit the Pentagon."

A missile has wing sections, and travelling at a high rate of speed is very similar in appearance to a plane. Know your stuff before you try to argue. Then there were firefighters who were quoted talking about how the twin towers were demolished and before they collapsed they heard the popping sounds of the demolition beginning. I don't intend to argue, but 9-11 was not what were were told and sadly, Americans are too stupid to put science together + common sense and realize they were lied to. Who did this we'll never know, but I don't believe the mainstream garbage nor do I think it was "the government". I don't know about that.

 

[Sequimite]

I'm hearing a lot of "possible". I call this Dr. Seuss logic: "If such a thing could be it probably would be"

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Hearsay from my own father and personal family friend? Ok. My dad called me that day and said, "A missile just hit the Pentagon."

A missile has wing sections, and travelling at a high rate of speed is very similar in appearance to a plane. Know your stuff before you try to argue. Then there were firefighters who were quoted talking about how the twin towers were demolished and before they collapsed they heard the popping sounds of the demolition beginning. I don't intend to argue, but 9-11 was not what were were told and sadly, Americans are too stupid to put science together + common sense and realize they were lied to. Who did this we'll never know, but I don't believe the mainstream garbage nor do I think it was "the government". I don't know about that.

Yes, it is hearsay.

So firemen are now demolitions experts and all those structural engineers who say otherwise must be being paid off