- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
So, it spread to a few threads, and I'm saving Ballistics time. This is where anything related to 9/11 Truther Movement goes.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
9/11 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
- Status
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
In case you missed it.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Ballistics, create your argument, and I'll give you topic ownership.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Thanks CK, will do
TheOriginalSmasher
Smash Ace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
Loose change, an hour long documentary, While I will not be involved in this debate, i'm just posting the link.
Loose change, an hour long documentary, While I will not be involved in this debate, i'm just posting the link.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Fixed for you.
Loose Change is literally the most bogus footage of the last 50 years, and I am including The Good Son.
TheOriginalSmasher
Smash Ace
No need to belittle the facts. It is a good film that really does open the eyes.
Also, fixed ur post.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Well there are no "facts" in the film. It takes a college student's (who created it mind you) opinion on his cursory knowledge of engineering and structure design to create a MASSIVE conspiracy that would be the most airtight in human history. Seriously, this scheme would have to operate under the guise that NO ONE speaks about it ever. And humans can't commit to that.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
I agree. However my big long shpeal post will be using the evidence and data assembled by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to prevent people from pulling the no credentials card.
Aesir
Smash Master
Not to mention this is the same Administration that handled FEMA.
Yeah I'm not buying it.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Also, as with Kennedy's assassination, it fails on a very logical level: if the sole purpose of 9/11 was to enter Afghanistan and Iraq, we could have done it MANY other ways. Hell, we still had troops stationed in Iraq from Desert Storm. Getting back there wouldn't have been THAT hard.
TheOriginalSmasher
Smash Ace
Not ONE fact in the entire film? hmm... (somewhat jk)
Aesir
Smash Master
^ Oh our bad, planes hit the towers, None of their claims can be shown to be factual.
TheOriginalSmasher
Smash Ace
.....Or were they planes?!?! Aliens perhaps?! (full on jk)
But somewhat relevant to that, did anyone hear about the ghost plane theory?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcE2IFJ7wCY&feature=related
For the second video, its purpose is not to show you how to make a ghost plane, but rather, how possible / similar it is.
But somewhat relevant to that, did anyone hear about the ghost plane theory?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcE2IFJ7wCY&feature=related
For the second video, its purpose is not to show you how to make a ghost plane, but rather, how possible / similar it is.
D
Deleted member
Guest
The 9/11 Truth Movement definitely has an appearance of legitimacy to it. I, like most people, was pretty frightened when I saw movies like Loose Change. The bias was apparent, but when they present "facts", which seem pretty concrete, it still does incite emotion and fear.
Still, it seems pretty clear by now that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy or anything like that. Without using any science or anything (since that generally won't do in those scenarios, where a small group of scientists go against the majority), certain huge gaps in the conspiracy theory can be seen.
1. If 9/11 was in fact a conspiracy, then it would be fair to say that at least 1000 people (actually far more) were involved. Thousands more were murdered, meaning clearly the government wouldn't be opposed to killing or even torturing others.
If this is the case, why hasn't the government tortured/coerced the scientists/activists working for the 9/11 Truth group? The government would benefit greatly from the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement and lead scientists saying that they were in fact wrong to say that the government was involved. They could do many things such as torture the individuals themselves, torture family members, threaten murder, threaten murder of family members, or in much simpler cases, just offer money. They would have no opposition to this, since they are apparently fine with murder and torture, and they have nothing to fear from the conspiracy theorists "telling on them" to the public, since nobody is REALLY going to believe them if they make that claim.
2. Again, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, then more than 1000 people (at least) were involved in the mass illusion which was placed on everyone. Presumably many of those people are in the army, FBI, or any other top government agencies. Those people all enrolled in those positions because they had a desire to serve their country. True, it is possible that certain people in those groups can be corrupted to do terrible things, but to say that such a large group of people can all be contacted for this task (helping with 9/11) with no leaks is making a huge statement about the morality of people in army/military (or whatever it's called), FBI/The rest of them, and government positions.
Even if they were able to assemble such a large group of people and have them participate in 9/11, it is extremely unlikely that none of those people will leak the information they have to the public. While those thousands of people have supposedly been corrupted, they all initially joined their positions to serve their country, and they would be the first people who would stand up against people who try to harm their country (that specifically is referring to the military).
To sum up,
1. The government could have just tortured the 9/11 truthers to do what they want.
2. That over 1000, who are dedicated to serving their country, ALL would be corrupted to completely, is very unlikely.
Phew, my first ever wall of text, in my first ever post in the PG. Hi everybody!
Still, it seems pretty clear by now that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy or anything like that. Without using any science or anything (since that generally won't do in those scenarios, where a small group of scientists go against the majority), certain huge gaps in the conspiracy theory can be seen.
1. If 9/11 was in fact a conspiracy, then it would be fair to say that at least 1000 people (actually far more) were involved. Thousands more were murdered, meaning clearly the government wouldn't be opposed to killing or even torturing others.
If this is the case, why hasn't the government tortured/coerced the scientists/activists working for the 9/11 Truth group? The government would benefit greatly from the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement and lead scientists saying that they were in fact wrong to say that the government was involved. They could do many things such as torture the individuals themselves, torture family members, threaten murder, threaten murder of family members, or in much simpler cases, just offer money. They would have no opposition to this, since they are apparently fine with murder and torture, and they have nothing to fear from the conspiracy theorists "telling on them" to the public, since nobody is REALLY going to believe them if they make that claim.
2. Again, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, then more than 1000 people (at least) were involved in the mass illusion which was placed on everyone. Presumably many of those people are in the army, FBI, or any other top government agencies. Those people all enrolled in those positions because they had a desire to serve their country. True, it is possible that certain people in those groups can be corrupted to do terrible things, but to say that such a large group of people can all be contacted for this task (helping with 9/11) with no leaks is making a huge statement about the morality of people in army/military (or whatever it's called), FBI/The rest of them, and government positions.
Even if they were able to assemble such a large group of people and have them participate in 9/11, it is extremely unlikely that none of those people will leak the information they have to the public. While those thousands of people have supposedly been corrupted, they all initially joined their positions to serve their country, and they would be the first people who would stand up against people who try to harm their country (that specifically is referring to the military).
To sum up,
1. The government could have just tortured the 9/11 truthers to do what they want.
2. That over 1000, who are dedicated to serving their country, ALL would be corrupted to completely, is very unlikely.
Phew, my first ever wall of text, in my first ever post in the PG. Hi everybody!
I don't buy the conspiracy. I wanted to.. I really hated the fact that this happened, I found it to be a terrible tragedy and a real slap in the nads for the US. I've no doubt the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen. They were clearly warned, of an impending attack, involving hijacked planes, to be used as projectiles, to topple the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml
But to think that Bush went a step further, and MADE it happen, not just "let" it happen through ignorance, or whatever ... no. I can't buy that. It's just too easy to write it off that way. Just like with JFK, is it really so hard to believe that it was the act of one crazy dude? For many, yes there just HAS to be some huge conspiracy at play for such a terrible act to take place.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml
But to think that Bush went a step further, and MADE it happen, not just "let" it happen through ignorance, or whatever ... no. I can't buy that. It's just too easy to write it off that way. Just like with JFK, is it really so hard to believe that it was the act of one crazy dude? For many, yes there just HAS to be some huge conspiracy at play for such a terrible act to take place.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
gm jack
Smash Lord
Do you have any evidence that anything like government intervention was needed? You make the assumption that the people who planned the attacks were stupid. Airport security is not good.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/bozeman_man_accidentally_brings_gun_onto_airplane_turns_himself_in/
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/knife-plane-water/article-1064063-detail/article.html
The difficulty is coordinating such a large scale attack undetected, but that is mostly true now because of what happened on 9/11.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
To sum up,
1. The government could have just tortured the 9/11 truthers to do what they want.
2. That over 1000, who are dedicated to serving their country, ALL would be corrupted to completely, is very unlikely.
1. This was an isolated incident of murder, with lagging events of cover up. The coverage has been denied through the media and various organizations that plan to keep the established view. This isn't Stalin's Regime where you can just be lead out of your home and shot in front of your family for dissenting. However they have been ignoring, and quietly resisting the 9/11 truth movement. For instance: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h2Ck_40MNUekB-uO5iH0KfJ1ZYeQD9IDSQ380
2. Why do you think 1,000 individuals would have to know the deep dark circumstances of a planned attack? Hundreds of FEMA personnel were in New York monday night, having just arrived to conduct their biological terrorism attack drill scheduled for the next day: September 11th 2001, how convenient that they were there with 400 trucks ready to take debris away from the buildings and help injured victims from the towers. Just because they were there, doesn't mean all the FEMA workers are part of the controlled demolition. It just means they were doing their job, and higher up individuals are to blame. Perhaps you should look towards all the whistle blowers that lost their jobs stepped out of commissions on the grounds that they discovered too much information to keep quiet about it. http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
1. The government could have just tortured the 9/11 truthers to do what they want.
2. That over 1000, who are dedicated to serving their country, ALL would be corrupted to completely, is very unlikely.
1. This was an isolated incident of murder, with lagging events of cover up. The coverage has been denied through the media and various organizations that plan to keep the established view. This isn't Stalin's Regime where you can just be lead out of your home and shot in front of your family for dissenting. However they have been ignoring, and quietly resisting the 9/11 truth movement. For instance: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h2Ck_40MNUekB-uO5iH0KfJ1ZYeQD9IDSQ380
2. Why do you think 1,000 individuals would have to know the deep dark circumstances of a planned attack? Hundreds of FEMA personnel were in New York monday night, having just arrived to conduct their biological terrorism attack drill scheduled for the next day: September 11th 2001, how convenient that they were there with 400 trucks ready to take debris away from the buildings and help injured victims from the towers. Just because they were there, doesn't mean all the FEMA workers are part of the controlled demolition. It just means they were doing their job, and higher up individuals are to blame. Perhaps you should look towards all the whistle blowers that lost their jobs stepped out of commissions on the grounds that they discovered too much information to keep quiet about it. http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
D
Deleted member
Guest
If 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, that isolated incident of murder clearly shows that the government not only has willingness to torture/interrogate others, but also that they have the means. If they can take out 3000 people with so many people believing it was an accident(EDIT: Sorry, I meant terrorist plot), they can definitely make certain people 'disappear" for a while, under the guise of a "business trip' or something like that. I don't think it's logical to say that the government is capable of orchestrating 9/11, but not capable of getting rid of a few leaks which are present in the 9/11 truth group.
As for the link, I don't think Ahmadinejad is the kind of source you want to be pulling up. Remember that he also has holocaust denial on his very long resume (links to this can be easily found be googling 'Ahmadinejad Holocaust'). In that article you linked he claims that the majority of Americans believe that 9/11 is a conspiracy, which a quick google search shows is not the case (most sources say around one third). He says quote: "That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."
I'm not sure 1000 is the right number, but it would definitely be something very high around there. Many people in the following groups would have to be lying for things to have gone the way they have: The Pentagon, the 9/11 commission, hundreds of scientists, many architects, SO SO many people in the media (as is often claimed), certain people in the Air Force, certain Fire Fighters, certain Police Officers, and many people in the FBI and other organizations like them (I don't know the names).
Regarding the link you sent, to be honest I don't have a great answer to each of the whistle-blower stories there (although the very first video does looking like a clever bit of video editting).
One thing I will note is that all of the stories have one thing in common, which is that they are not actually making concrete statements about the events of 9/11. They are simply people saying "I was stopped from doing further investigation by my higher ups (the big bad government)". The type of whistle-blowers I was referring to is the type where somebody flat out says 'I was involved in perpetrating this aspect of 9/11", or "I was involved in covering up this part of 9/11". The people in the link you sent don't actually know anything about what happened, it's just speculation upon speculation upon speculation. Evidently their higher ups all knew about what was going on and they were covering it up (and that's a LOT of people), but none of those people have stepped forward.
BOB SAGET!
Smash Lord
My arguement against Ballistics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA97P5D-y7M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGnODZKx3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8UzWclbkA&feature=related
More proof then your videos.......LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGnODZKx3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8UzWclbkA&feature=related
More proof then your videos.......LOL
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
Did you even watch the three videos I linked? :S
They cover all of the main spots used by the truth movement.
I'd would be more than happy to change my mind if you had some rebuttals to these three videos.
They cover all of the main spots used by the truth movement.
I'd would be more than happy to change my mind if you had some rebuttals to these three videos.
BOB SAGET!
Smash Lord
Who are you talking to, me?
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
NOTE: Moved this in from the center stage. I watched the first 30 minutes of Ballistics' video as he requested, and I think Aesir's link effectively addresses most of the points made in the video.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. So now, here's the things I found in Aesir's link that might interest you.
In response to the allegations that fire couldn't have caused the building to collapse:
Now, the one thing the link did not have is how the building could have fallen straight down from the fire. I will work on finding a source for that.
However, the three main points addressed in the first 30 minutes of the video were these:
1. WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed
2. Fire couldn't have made the buildings collapse
3. Fire wouldn't have caused the building to fall straight down
The link Aesir provided addresses the first 2 points.
EDIT: Found a link for point #3. This is a really nice site with lots of helpful diagrams: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. So now, here's the things I found in Aesir's link that might interest you.
In response to the allegations that fire couldn't have caused the building to collapse:
In response to the questions raised about WTC7's collapse:
Now, the one thing the link did not have is how the building could have fallen straight down from the fire. I will work on finding a source for that.
However, the three main points addressed in the first 30 minutes of the video were these:
1. WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed
2. Fire couldn't have made the buildings collapse
3. Fire wouldn't have caused the building to fall straight down
The link Aesir provided addresses the first 2 points.
EDIT: Found a link for point #3. This is a really nice site with lots of helpful diagrams: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
D
Deleted member
Guest
I too watched the first 30 minutes of "9/11 Blueprint for Truth". Actually, I watched 35 minutes, so in your face KrazyGlue.
KrazyGlue's post pretty much covered the science to debunk the claims from the video, so there's no need to re-post that.
One thing to note is that the video constantly talks about how (paraphrasing), "damage from fire could not, and has never brought down a building of this architectural nature." The video which he shows testing this theory shows that the building in an experiment from 1995 did not collapse despite heavy fires. This is a clear example of either negligence or downright dishonesty on his part. The damage to the WTC buildings was by no means just because of the fires, but also because of the plane. KrazyGlue's post goes into that more, so again, no need to go into it too much. Just wanted to point out the fact that all of the examples from the architect in the video (can't recall his name) refer to fire damage alone, completely neglecting the fact that there was a plane involved.
I also wanna mention the peer review process, and how these scientists (and I'm sure there's quite a few of them) clearly have not met the requirements laid out for a hypothesis to even come close to being accepted. The way the peer review process works is simple (to understand). If a scientist wants to present a claim and have it published with the prestigious title of it being "peer reviewed" they must present their claims to a TONS of scientists (there might be some name for the body of scientists, I don't know it), and those scientists will go through that claim line by line, word by word, letter by letter, for the SOLE PURPOSE of finding flaws and mistakes in those claims. It is THIS which makes peer reviewed papers so widely accepted; the fact that people with expertise in that background have gone through the paper extensively just to find mistakes, and did not.
Quite simply, there have been no peer reviewed papers published regarding the "9/11 Truth movement", or any of the controversial scientific claims that they make. On the other hand, tons of peer reviewed papers have been written confirming the "Official Version" of what happened on 9/11.
I'm not saying that just because the papers are peer reviewed they can be blindly accepted as true, but if papers have not even gone through the process, then they are simply the claims of random scientists and engineers. As far as we (simple laymen) are concerned, we should pay little to no attention to scientific work until it has gone through the peer review process, quite simply because we do not have enough scientific knowledge to properly analyze and assess it.
KrazyGlue's post pretty much covered the science to debunk the claims from the video, so there's no need to re-post that.
One thing to note is that the video constantly talks about how (paraphrasing), "damage from fire could not, and has never brought down a building of this architectural nature." The video which he shows testing this theory shows that the building in an experiment from 1995 did not collapse despite heavy fires. This is a clear example of either negligence or downright dishonesty on his part. The damage to the WTC buildings was by no means just because of the fires, but also because of the plane. KrazyGlue's post goes into that more, so again, no need to go into it too much. Just wanted to point out the fact that all of the examples from the architect in the video (can't recall his name) refer to fire damage alone, completely neglecting the fact that there was a plane involved.
I also wanna mention the peer review process, and how these scientists (and I'm sure there's quite a few of them) clearly have not met the requirements laid out for a hypothesis to even come close to being accepted. The way the peer review process works is simple (to understand). If a scientist wants to present a claim and have it published with the prestigious title of it being "peer reviewed" they must present their claims to a TONS of scientists (there might be some name for the body of scientists, I don't know it), and those scientists will go through that claim line by line, word by word, letter by letter, for the SOLE PURPOSE of finding flaws and mistakes in those claims. It is THIS which makes peer reviewed papers so widely accepted; the fact that people with expertise in that background have gone through the paper extensively just to find mistakes, and did not.
Quite simply, there have been no peer reviewed papers published regarding the "9/11 Truth movement", or any of the controversial scientific claims that they make. On the other hand, tons of peer reviewed papers have been written confirming the "Official Version" of what happened on 9/11.
I'm not saying that just because the papers are peer reviewed they can be blindly accepted as true, but if papers have not even gone through the process, then they are simply the claims of random scientists and engineers. As far as we (simple laymen) are concerned, we should pay little to no attention to scientific work until it has gone through the peer review process, quite simply because we do not have enough scientific knowledge to properly analyze and assess it.
Just one question: If you're going to destroy a building with demolition, what's the point of flying a plane into it? Or two planes for that matter? One plane without demolition would have been enough. If the main objective was to falsely assign blame to rogue entities, then the organizers of the attack would not be concerned with maximizing casualties. But there were two planes at NYC, plus an attack on the Pentagon, and a plane crash in Pennsylvania. That is above and beyond the call of duty. That suggests that the objective was to maximize casualties, something that makes more sense with an outside job.
One of Ballistics' videos posted in Center Stage suggests the involvement of the Pakistani ISI due to certain statements about the ISI being censored in reports. The censorship was probably out of consideration for Pakistan's national security. That the head of the organization stepped down after 9/11 suggests that any link between thee ISI and 9/11 (if one existed) was most likely due to a major blunder on the part of the ISI. I can think of no reason why an attack on the U.S. would be beneficial to the government of Pakistan.
Furthermore, the U.S. is a country that invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein was making WMD. Turns out there were none.
A country that can do that and not suffer reprimand by any higher authority does not need to fabricate a terrorist attack in order to justify a military operation.
One of Ballistics' videos posted in Center Stage suggests the involvement of the Pakistani ISI due to certain statements about the ISI being censored in reports. The censorship was probably out of consideration for Pakistan's national security. That the head of the organization stepped down after 9/11 suggests that any link between thee ISI and 9/11 (if one existed) was most likely due to a major blunder on the part of the ISI. I can think of no reason why an attack on the U.S. would be beneficial to the government of Pakistan.
Furthermore, the U.S. is a country that invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein was making WMD. Turns out there were none.
A country that can do that and not suffer reprimand by any higher authority does not need to fabricate a terrorist attack in order to justify a military operation.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
FYI: I'm going to let puu carry out the debate from here. I was just posting the relevant findings from Aesir's link. But it's not my place to make a bunch of posts here, considering the goal is to see how well PGers fare against each other.
Lol. Only means you wasted 5 more minutes of time!
Ballistics
Smash Champion
The debate hall sounds like a cool place but its not my objective to get in. All I wanted to do was present this subject in the only place that I thought you were allowed to post any subject, in the pool room, but my thread was locked because the mods didn't want... Actually I have no idea why they locked the thread. So CK told me to post here.
I am trying to help you guys because this is a really important matter. I understand its hard to think about your government doing something awful but truthfully it happens all the time and not just in our country. I find it amusing that everyone disagreeing with me has only skimmed my video. I know you guys are busy but the death of your fellow 3,000 citizens deserves 2 hours of your time.
I am not going to debate your debunking theories because you cannot debunk the scientific evidence presented by the Architects and Engineers that are part of this movement. If you will not give me the decency to look at the AE911Truth.org evidence on their website, or watch this video, I feel no need to argue with you, because you have already made up your mind and I cannot change it. If you look scientific evidence in the face and then google theories to debunk it, you are justifying your own theories and not observing with a clean slate.
I used to think as the majority do, that there is no way the Bush Administration would lie to its own people. But I saw the evidence and I do not play with facts.
I am not going to list all the evidence that a 2 hour presentation presents, little pieces at a time so that you can use my inexperience of talking about this subject to justify your theories. I am letting you know that this organization has the evidence, presents the evidence in the video, if you care about your fellow citizens that have been murdered, you will watch the video, if you don't care, don't watch it, and I will not care about you either.
I will try and write out the evidence in the thread that CK has designated for the 9/11 truth movement, but all at once.
I know this is hard guys but please take me seriously. I am not your enemy I am your friend. =)
I am trying to help you guys because this is a really important matter. I understand its hard to think about your government doing something awful but truthfully it happens all the time and not just in our country. I find it amusing that everyone disagreeing with me has only skimmed my video. I know you guys are busy but the death of your fellow 3,000 citizens deserves 2 hours of your time.
I am not going to debate your debunking theories because you cannot debunk the scientific evidence presented by the Architects and Engineers that are part of this movement. If you will not give me the decency to look at the AE911Truth.org evidence on their website, or watch this video, I feel no need to argue with you, because you have already made up your mind and I cannot change it. If you look scientific evidence in the face and then google theories to debunk it, you are justifying your own theories and not observing with a clean slate.
I used to think as the majority do, that there is no way the Bush Administration would lie to its own people. But I saw the evidence and I do not play with facts.
I am not going to list all the evidence that a 2 hour presentation presents, little pieces at a time so that you can use my inexperience of talking about this subject to justify your theories. I am letting you know that this organization has the evidence, presents the evidence in the video, if you care about your fellow citizens that have been murdered, you will watch the video, if you don't care, don't watch it, and I will not care about you either.
I will try and write out the evidence in the thread that CK has designated for the 9/11 truth movement, but all at once.
I know this is hard guys but please take me seriously. I am not your enemy I am your friend. =)
D
Deleted member
Guest
In terms of people here personally debunking the evidence presented by those scientists, the fact is that it's extremely unlikely that anybody here has the scientific credentials to debunk the information presented by both sides. The only thing we CAN do is look at each side from a logical standpoint and see which one is more likely to be true.
In my eyes, there are 2 sides:
1. A side consisting of a small minority of scientists and engineers, who have not successfully had their views go through the peer review process.
2. A side consisting of the vast majority of scientists of engineers, who have have published numerous papers through the scientific process.
Both sides have presented their views, and even aside from the fact that the 9/11 Truth side has not had their work peer reviewed, the evidence they provide is shady at best, and it does not appear at all that they have actually honestly questioned whether or not the information they present is legitimate.
Please don't try to say that the reason why people don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy is because we haven't taken the time to evaluate the evidence, or we can't accept that the government could be involved, please. I watched Loose Change, I watched the video you linked, I've read several pieces on the 9/11 conspiracy because I honestly wanted (EDIT: This should say "want") to know the answer. Also, I don't think anybody in our modern society is so fragile that they believe that the government MUST be on our side, and we just can't accept that they could be against us.
Along with watching arguments for the 9/11 conspiracy, I have also watched videos and read pieces backing up the official story. Reading both sides is intellectual honesty, and it is something that far too many people from both sides don't do. It's the reason why so many people believe Obama wasn't born in America, or that George Bush is evil.
On the topic of linking stuff, just a couple of hours ago I read the information on this site for the first time. http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
That video addresses most of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth movement. Read through them, took me about 5-10 minutes. To be honest I rarely read through the specific scientific details, because quite frankly any scientist can make these things look good for a layman like me. Just read it and compare two things.
1. Which makes logical sense.
2. Which is generally accepted by people who know MUCH MUCH more about this than me.
To me the answer is the same for both, so I have an easy time with it.
I did provide links and specific slide numbers to my written case. You have only provided links to the same site with no written arguments. You want a fully researched post? Fine. I can only address 1 link so I'll do the first you posted:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842
Planes (pg2): This was not part of the debate. The type of plane isn't in the posted issue.
Widespread damage pg3: Quoted from:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
(or PM for short)
"Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "
The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film."
The whole tragedy was filmed; this should appear. The fuel theory can't explain the symmetrical collapse, squibs, area above the impact collapsing first, concrete grounded into powder and shot over 600ft, extreme temperatures on the lower levels but not middle levels, and the collapse of other buildings. (These were linked to earlier with a slide show and slide numbers but not observed so here's visual support):
^This was not plane fuel.
"Melted Steel": Quote from PM:
"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. " "
Steel was melted, there is visual evidence on lower floors and where the plane struck.
Quoted from: http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
"Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."
The fires were at least 1000 degrees too cold to melt steel, jet fuel looses a lot of heat flowing down a shaft for 78 floors, as claimed above. But only the top and lower sections exploded. This theory cannot be correct.
Puffs of dust:
Quoted PM: "Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction."
Look at the site for a more thorough explanation.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Semi-Spikes: Not really addressed but,
Quote: " "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." "
They're ignoring scientific evidence (posted above).
WTC7 Collapse: Quote PM: "With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," "
The collapse was identical to a controller demolition as shown by this side by side comparison:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=22&lores=1
Debris damage cannot cause 23 core columns to simultaneously collapse.
Further sections are not related to the controlled demolition theory and will not be addressed.
The conclusions of AE911 truth have been checked by 1322 architects and engineers so far. Not 1 discredited person.
I did say it was a two way street. Why are you defending any condescending?
This isn't about conspiracy so please don't associate the two. The debate is 'how the towers in the 9/11 tragedy were brought down. I have provided evidence beyond reasonable scientific doubt that it was controlled demolition.
This brings up a good point. I encourage everyone to watch a video of the towers falling. Ask yourself 'does this look like it was caused by the plane crash or fire?'. Or as stated in my last post, 'simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There. I thoroughly examined and disproved a link by written form through scientific methods. No one addressed the well organized scientific points in my last post and few people have presented a case other than links and questioning method and/or credibility. That is exactly what I mean when I said I hate when people can't answer a question or support their position. If you disagree, prove me wrong with on topic facts, not opinions.
I have a question. Supposing this wasn't a Government job, and these experts are just creating a "conspiracy", what exactly would be the motive behind doing this be? Is there some sort of money to be made from this?
fragbait
Smash Master
Do you mean, what do the experts gain from creating conspiracy?
Doubt in government, I suppose. There are also a few people in the movement that have become significantly well known in the media who make decent sums of money for an appearance.
Furthermore, it could simply come down to "I want attention. Let's start a conspiracy."
uh, well yeah. The attacks of 9/11. ? I guess I'm not following your question...
I see nothing of this in my previous post. I made no assumptions or even references to airport security. I was saying that the Bush Administration dropped the ball essentially. Condi Rice literally had a report in her hands before the attacks, a page or two of which saying words to the effect of "Osama bin Laden is planning to attack the US with hijacked plans by flying them into the WTC, Pentagon, and White House." How much more warning can you get? LOL
Ballistics
Smash Champion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243#
Oil
Oh wait I misread that. There is no motive for the Architects and Engineers of 9/11 truth to be making this fuss other than educating the American People. They are a non-profit organization.
fragbait
Smash Master
Did you completely ignore my statement above? There are still greedy people in Non-Profits.
fragbait
Smash Master
Good post man.
Here's my responses:
1) If there is in fact a conspiracy, the government wouldn't NEED to torture anyone involved with the truth movement. The quick mobilization of media outlet as well as the days upon days of repeated footage burned the image into the collective eye of the world long before any truth movement arose. Due to the quick mobilization of media, the collective Patriotic Spirit of America gave rise to those who will not question any action the government may then on take. If you want a couple examples, take the PATRIOT Act (cleverly named if I do say so myself) and the mobilization of troops to fight the threat of terror.
By the time any sort of truth movement arose, the government would have already fed the public enough information and propaganda that there are few that would believe it by this time. They wouldn't need to silence them, because the majority would do it for them.
2) Not every single person involved would need to be directly aware of the situation, only those in charge. The workers would simply be doing their jobs.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Again, we cannot discuss the science of this issue, we are not scientists. All we can discuss is who we should logically agree with when picking a side.
Regarding what the collapse looks like, that's no where near science, or even logic. It doesn't matter (from our perspective) what is "looks like". Tons of things look like they are one way, but they actually aren't. For example, does the Earth revolve around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? From our perspective, the Sun quite clearly goes around the Earth. Only scientists can tell us that the Earth goes around the Sun.
To quote you: "simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact"
This is a common fallacy which I talked about before (and I think KrazyGlue mentioned it too). You used the word or. or is not the issue here, and is the issue. There haven't been any other cases of large planes flying into giant skyscrapers, so there is nothing to compare this to.
Again, neither you (probably, I don't know your credentials) nor I have the credentials to analyze the science being examined. The only thing we can do is decide which side is probably more accurate. People much more qualified in this matter have provided rebuttals to the information you posted. Those people have had their work peer reviewed, while the work which you posted hasn't even come close. From our perspective, the non-peer reviewed work is meaningless.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Thanks! I notice you're also a Ness main. Wooo DJC.
1) That's a good point, in fact I don't think they even bring up the 9/11 conspiracy. I think they know that if they bring it up, they give it a feel of legitimacy, which obviously wouldn't be good for them. Now that the Truth Movement is here though, and around 1/3 Americans believe the government was involved (a shockingly high number), I think they would care. Now that they're out of office though it's clearly not going to happen.
2) In terms of people involved in total, that number goes into the tens of thousands, including fire fighters, police, air traffic control, the government, the demolition crew, the FBI, the air force and others. Out of those tens of thousands, I'm sure a lot of them had to be in on it. The alternative would be orders coming down from at least 5-6 "steps" above, which would definitely be too difficult to coordinate without certain people lower on the ladder knowing what they're doing. The demolition crew which supposedly set up the bombs would have to be in on it, the people who supposedly murdered the passengers of that one flight (I forgot which number it was), and many more.
Not to mention tons of people in the media who are supposedly covering it up.
- Status