9/11 conspiracy Theories

[Inspector]

Here's another article; this one referces the popular mechanics one.

Still, for my money, the best statement on this subject is still Maddox's title of his article, "There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons."

[Eurynomus]

I just saw this video, and I thought it was pretty interesting. I don't know much about engineering, so I can't tell whether this stuff is on the money or not. It's long, but they bring up some interesting points...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...High+Quality%29

[InfoWarrior]

Hi folks. I just wanted to chime in.

I am the person with whom Alex ended his "amicable correspondance." I wrote cap-mag asking them to allow me to write a rebuttal of the hit piece Alex wrote about me. I have not received a reply, and I anticipate I never will.

I would like to answer the question which seems to be prevalent on this site as to why people who question 9/11 are still alive. Especially Dylan Avery. If a hit were ever placed on someone in the public eye who questions the official story of 9/11 their work would go super-nova. This would work against the aim of whoever is calling the shots, because a massave wave of people would start to question the official story of 9/11, more so than already do now.

We don't know all the details of what happened on 9/11 but I know when I can smell a big stinking rat. The official story is the most unbelieveable of all, and I plan to explain this another time in the near future in a different posting.

-InfoWarrior

[$$$]

I was involved with the 9/11 conspiracy. I got a call from Bush's men about 6 months before the act was to occur. It was an INSIDE job. My job was to take gigantic magnets into the trade centre buildings and hide them. These magnets provided by the military (used to distort time fields on aircraft carriers) are so powerful that I simply needed to aim them at the planes taking off in Boston. The magnet drew the planes right in.

I don't know what happened at the pentagon, I wasn't involved there.

In telling you this my life is in grave danger. Hopefully Bush's assassins won't find me hiding in my home.

I can tell you, 9/11 was an easier job then trying to create a fake WMD in Iraq. That was way harder and we failed. We had a fake one in Kurdistan for years. The war started and we figured we could just drive the missile with it's tiny amount of nuclear waste about 200 km south during the confusion of the invasion. But the roads were so bad, and it was kind of hot out, I was a bit grumpy. It just wouldn't work. We tried for a year or two. We finally gave up, it was just too difficult to implement that conspiracy. 9/11 was a cake walk compared to that. Bush was so mad, he almost had me killed. Now I find out he's listening to my personal phone calls! Luckily I don't think he is watching my internet communications.

Spread the word!

[softwareNerd]

Cox and Forkum have a cartoon (link) that illustrate the epistemological method of conspiracy theorists.

[Clawg]

Cox and Forkum have a cartoon (link) that illustrate the epistemological method of conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately that works the other way round, too (for the official conspiracy theory). Replace some of the buzz-words with "al-qaeda", "terrorism" and "sleeper-cell" and you have the same situation

That's why one should not hold beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven. The credibility of official story is to some extent only based on the fact that the government supports the official theory - and not based on the facts that are available in public. And that's the basic problem - not much information has been put out into the public.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of why WTC7 has collapsed and the numerous open questions the official investigation mentions in their reports and evidence to the numerous claims that were made. The investigations of the collapse of WTC1 / WTC2 also lack of depth. Yes, NIST put out a huge pile of papers some months ago. I flipped through them and still had questions concerning the collapse. They analyze over 10k pages how the initial collapse could have been occured and spend one page on the issue of the total collapse. Well, I guess I have to believe them because it's impossible for me (or anyone) to disprove them, not only because their computer models are not available for other researchers but because they offer no theory at all.

Keeping in mind the costs of the attack, the loss of life, the costs of the following wars, the still present danger and the growing scepticism I find it highly recommandable to find answers to the open questions even if nothing new is found.

[TheEgoist]

A nice study that completely destroys the whole " structural damager " shit

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

[Spaghettim0nst3r]

A lot of the people who criticize the CT's seem to me to have a very narrow point of view looking at the situation, and seem to be very prepared to discount their evidence based on their conclusions, instead of the other way around. I don't think anyone should be overly willing to discredit their side of the argument simply because it "seems" inconceivable. All of the people who affiliate themselves with the Objectivist ideology necessarily believe our current government is grossly overpowered. Most of you by merit of being interested in at least one philosophy are familiar with the ideology behind the current government, i.e. neo-conservatism. You are also aware that this kind of "demonstration" (9/11) would work very well in creating an enemy figure to unite a nation, providing the social influence and control prescribed by that ideology.

The Loose Change movie does bring some interesting points to light, whether or not all of the unanswered questions can lead one to conclude foul play on the part of our own government (or those controlling it) should not curb our interest in asking them. There are still a lot of things about 9/11 that remain unanswered... and our governments willingness to give us a specific answer that is so unsatisfactory seems at the very least fishy.

The plane that hit the pentagon could not have, "vaporized."

Why were security camera tapes confiscated that filmed the event at the pentagon, while news camera's were glued to the WTC complex after the first hit?

The plane that supposedly crashed in Shanksville couldn't have "vaporized."

Why would WTC 7 "crimp" in the middle and completely collapse even though it was only damaged on one face?

This is a partial pic of WTC 7's damaged side.

This is a picture of the Banker's Trust building's damaged side.

This is a proximity layout of distances between Banker's Trust and the South Tower, and WTC 7 and the North Tower.

Keep in mind WTC 7 had a building between itself and the North Tower, WTC6.

The Banker's Trust building was closer to the South Tower, than WTC7 was to the North Tower.

So, what indeed is the difference between these buildings that caused the spectacular, unprecedented collapse of WTC 7, but left Banker's Trust standing tall? Why the crimp and eye witness accounts of explosions sounding like fully automatic "gunfire"?

Why the huge temperature difference in the pools of molten metal and the max temperature at which jet fuel burns?

I don't pretend to be certain either way, but I am fairly certain that the 9/11 Commission report should have addressed these issues.

It didn't mention WTC7 or the Molten Metal, but it does want us to believe titanium alloy can vaporize because of intense heat caused by burning jet fuel.

At the very least Dr. Steven Jones and the people at www.journalof911studies.com should be commended for conducting actual experiments and submitting their hypothesis for peer review to better understand these questions.

A movie that I think provides the broadness of scope needed to take the events of 9/11 into consideration is offered by a film called "Zeitgeist, The Movie" (google it, it's free to watch). I'm not endorsing the film as being 100% accurate, but what inaccuracies exist are minuscule.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Spaghettim0nst3r

[prosperity]

A rather humorous take on the hacks who created Loose Change can be found on Maddox's website.

Simply paraphrased, if the far-fetched allegations against the U.S. Military and the Federal Government were indeed true, that they orchestrated the death of over 3,000 U.S. citizens to advance their shadowy and unscrupulous powermongering, then the people who were responsible for the conception, production and dissemination of an incriminating video such as Loose Change would not be alive today to continue their vituperations.

It is like religion. Impervious to reason.

[Mammon]

Why were security camera tapes confiscated that filmed the event at the pentagon,

How often are cameras allowed to film the inside of the Pentagon?

while news camera's were glued to the WTC complex after the first hit?

Probably because a plane crashed into it.

[Clawg]

How often are cameras allowed to film the inside of the Pentagon?

There are security cameras inside and outside the Pentagon.

The only question is: Should they be released into the public?

[Tenure]

The fact is, conspiracy theorists have no respect for the reality of situations. Whilst I agree, a great deal of transparency of government dealings is needed, national security is another issue. There are private reasons for why certain information is not released; of course, one too many episodes of the X-Files and a Bourne movie help the conspiracy theorists see what they want to see - a hidden, evil agenda, beyond the usual process of protocol.

How many screw ups is it going to take, before they accept that governments are terrible at organising Health programs, let alone a gigantic conspiracy of flying planes into towers. Yes, there are things we don't understand, but as the same argument applies to 'Intelligent Design' theorists: one does not fill in the gaps with a biased conclusion - we look at what we know and go from there.

What is more likely: the Middle East, a hot bed of irrational, theologically driven barbarism, attacks a symbol of everything they're against - OR - the US government, the same US government that failed to even assassinate Castro, planned and co-ordinated an attack on its own country, covering unimaginable levels of security?

[LaszloWalrus]

Richard Nixon couldn't even cover up a hotel break-in, and Bush can cover up a massive terrorist attack?

[D'kian]

Richard Nixon couldn't even cover up a hotel break-in, and Bush can cover up a massive terrorist attack?

Consider these often are the same people who believe in massive cover-ups regarding the Kennedy assasination and the Apollo Lunar landings. Of the rest, there are many who belive in the evne more preposterous notion that a tiny cabal of Jews conspire to control the whole world. You're going up against some seriously screwed up epistemologies.

[Clawg]

The fact is, conspiracy theorists have no respect for the reality of situations. Whilst I agree, a great deal of transparency of government dealings is needed, national security is another issue. There are private reasons for why certain information is not released;

Yes, there are. But people have to be able to make informed decisions concerning the actions of their government. For example on the base of what has been released so far it is impossible to decide what hit the Pentagon. One has to trust the government on this issue.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, I agree that there are reasons to keep secrets. But this comes at a price and this power needs working checks in other areas of government (e.g. free press, FOIA, protection of 'whistleblowers' etc.). If you want the government to have secrets in the interest of national security then you need to have mechanisms to uncover abuses of this right.

Judging from what I have read these checks are not working.

When you're working for a company and report an error you get a promotion, when you're working for the government you get a demotion

Interesting reads on this subject: http://www.nswbc.org/press.htm , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Secu...owers_Coalition , http://www.justacitizen.com/

How many screw ups is it going to take, before they accept that governments are terrible at organising Health programs, let alone a gigantic conspiracy of flying planes into towers.

Three points:

1. Well, there are three things the government is good at: Doing nothing, blocking and destroying. That's what we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11.

There are some out there who claim 'the government did it'. I fully agree that this is hard to imagine because 'the government' involves a lot of bureaucracy. But there are ways to do things aside the bureaucracy and there are ways to disguise criminal actions as 'incompetence'.

The second worst thing (after initiating force) a government can do is having the monopoly of force but (knowingly?) not using it when it should. We know for a fact that informations about a possible attack has reached various positions within the chain of command and they were either ignored or blocked (there are a few stories out there who detail how the investigation prior to 9/11 was hampered).

Looking at the air defense on 9/11 similar questions arise. While the first plane could not have been stopped the fighters could have been in Manhattan well before the second plane struck the tower. Instead they flew half speed and in the wrong direction. Why?

Well, we know why, several drills were hold on that day and the commanders at NORAD were unable to distinguish between real world and exercise.

Even if all that is just incompetence, there should have been (or should be!) a thorough investigation and restructuring of the agencies.

2. I also want to add to your comment about a "gigantic conspiracy":

9/11 wasn't a 'gigantic conspiracy' if you don't believe the official version - except if you think that it was harder to do from the inside than it was from the outside.

You probably heard of Operation Northwoods: Switch the plane, remote control it, shoot it down, blame Cuba, start a war. The only people who needed to know about the plan were a handful at the top and a few loyal people at the ground preparing the plane. 9/11 was bigger but I don't see how it would have needed significantly more people for its execution.

3. 9/11 was a 'screw up' to a certain degree, 1 plane missed, and now over 51% don't believe the official story. Of course the latter could just be incompetence in delievering the facts

Yes, there are things we don't understand, but as the same argument applies to 'Intelligent Design' theorists: one does not fill in the gaps with a biased conclusion - we look at what we know and go from there.

Yes, but that works in both ways.

What parts of the official story can we verify without filling gaps with assumptions?

Not many.

The common denominator of people who don't believe in the official account is that they want release of documents and another investigation - not to hang Bush.

What is more likely: the Middle East, a hot bed of irrational, theologically driven barbarism, attacks a symbol of everything they're against - OR - the US government, the same US government that failed to even assassinate Castro, planned and co-ordinated an attack on its own country, covering unimaginable levels of security?

How about an 'AND'? There are enemies within the US as there are enemies outside. For different reasons but with common goals.

The rattling of his saber at the doorstep is good for the dictator (to keep his position in his country) and for those who call for more power for the goverment/themselves inside the country.

[IdeaSave]

I saw a video in which an Air Force fighter jet was placed on a runway, aimed at a concrete bunker at the other end, and crashed into it at about the speed at which the 9/11 commerical jets crashed.

That fighter jet _vaporized_ - there was nothing left of it but dust after the crash.

Jets are just flimsy tubes of metal, and when they crash at high velocity into a significantly more massive object, vaporization is to be expected.

Mark Peters

[Tenure]

1. Well, there are three things the government is good at: Doing nothing, blocking and destroying. That's what we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11.

Looking at the air defense on 9/11 similar questions arise. While the first plane could not have been stopped the fighters could have been in Manhattan well before the second plane struck the tower. Instead they flew half speed and in the wrong direction. Why?

There could be any number of reasons; the burden falls on the US government to explain why - and I agree, they've been anything but forthright about what happened, but it's a big leap to go from "something strange happened" to "conspiracy", is my point.

Well, we know why, several drills were hold on that day and the commanders at NORAD were unable to distinguish between real world and exercise.

I have no idea what this means - you're saying NORAD couldn't tell the difference between a training exercise and an actual, on-the-news, publicised attack on the country? What is your point?

Even if all that is just incompetence, there should have been (or should be!) a thorough investigation and restructuring of the agencies.

There should be, yes; just like there should be a closing down of many agencies and departments of the US government - it ain't like that's going to happen either.

2. I also want to add to your comment about a "gigantic conspiracy":

...

You probably heard of Operation Northwoods: Switch the plane, remote control it, shoot it down, blame Cuba, start a war. The only people who needed to know about the plan were a handful at the top and a few loyal people at the ground preparing the plane. 9/11 was bigger but I don't see how it would have needed significantly more people for its execution.

Other than the plane loads of people involved?

3. 9/11 was a 'screw up' to a certain degree, 1 plane missed, and now over 51% don't believe the official story. Of course the latter could just be incompetence in delievering the facts

Yes, but that works in both ways.

What parts of the official story can we verify without filling gaps with assumptions?

Not many.

The common denominator of people who don't believe in the official account is that they want release of documents and another investigation - not to hang Bush.

It's not exactly good scientific practice to fill in gaps with any assumption pulled out of your arse. A reasoned guess can satisfy, but only until more knowledge is gained. My problem is, that people see a number of errors in the official story (of which there are) and jump from those errors, to the conclusion of the evil government plotting away with the entire thing.

I don't have much faith in the US government, and I don't find it ludicrous to hazard that they made many errors that day and tried to cover them up. What I find ludicrous is the leap made to full blown conspiracy.

How about an 'AND'? There are enemies within the US as there are enemies outside. For different reasons but with common goals.

The rattling of his saber at the doorstep is good for the dictator (to keep his position in his country) and for those who call for more power for the goverment/themselves inside the country.

See above.

[softwareNerd]

There should be [agency re-structuring], yes; ...

Which actually happened: Homeland Security department was the restructuring. A huge new agency was created -- Transport Security Administration. Many new groups were put in place, to deal with coordination between other agencies. More government jobs for all!

[Tenure]

Oh...my apologies.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Tenure

[D'kian]

For example on the base of what has been released so far it is impossible to decide what hit the Pentagon. One has to trust the government on this issue.

You mean to say that a tape of an aircraft crashing on the Pentagon, plus a few tons of airplane debris at the scene, do not corroborate the claim that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon?

[Inspector]

It's not exactly good scientific practice to fill in gaps with any assumption pulled out of your arse.

Good point, but frankly: what gaps? As D'Kian says, we have more than enough painfully obvious evidence to show clearly what happened. Honestly, this loose change nonsense doesn't have a leg to stand on and I'm surprised that the moderators are even allowing this lunacy to be posted. You may as well claim that aliens built the pyramids. It's rubbish!

[Tenure]

Well, I didn't mean the obvious facts, I meant when odd details come up, like the crimping in the side of WTC7 or whatever it is.

And that was more a kind of general point about gap-filling, in the Polyfill sense.

[D'kian]

Well, I didn't mean the obvious facts, I meant when odd details come up, like the crimping in the side of WTC7 or whatever it is.

That's a good point which is often overlooked: during the middle of an emergency people do not stop to observe and measure details. Afterwards you have to sift through the remains and try to piece together exactly what happened.

[Inspector]

Well, I didn't mean the obvious facts, I meant when odd details come up, like the crimping in the side of WTC7 or whatever it is.

Frankly: are you an engineer? Because I think you'd have to be in order to decide that there is something unusual about the crimping. Until I am presented with some pretty solid evidence - from an engineer who is not a kook who claims the government was behind 9/11 - my position is to say that there is nothing unusual about it. That must be what happens when you crash a jumbo jet into a building. I mean, seriously, how often does that happen?

I need proof (credible proof) that there is something unusual before I assume that there is; much less before I am willing to entertain arguments that the unusualness was caused by some sort of "conspiracy."

The fact is that we know - beyond a shadow of a doubt - who perpetrated 9/11. Whatever the answers to details like the "crimping" are - I will bet you every penny that you are willing to spare that they will only confirm that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamists. And I don't even know what this "crimping" is that you refer to. I've said all of the above in perfect confidence without even knowing what you refer to. Because I don't need to know it to say what I have said.

The root cause of this kind of thing is an epistemological sickness - a willingness to believe in magic and fairies and to stifle the cognitive dissonance caused by simultaneously believing that our government is run by incompetent morons and that it is run by a vast conspiracy of Machiavellian Bushhitler manipulators!

That's why I'm somewhat upset that anyone here is willing to pretend - by offering actual discussion - that there is anything to discuss. There isn't - this "loose change" nonsense is such complete and utter garbage that the only appropriate form of answer (especially after popular mechanics and such provided the definitive science) is Maddox's.

To wit: "There is no 9/11 conspiracy, YOU MORONS."

And that was more a kind of general point about gap-filling, in the Polyfill sense.

Are you familiar with the "God of the gaps" argument, and why it is rubbish?

[Tenure]

..my position is to say that there is nothing unusual about it. That must be what happens when you crash a jumbo jet into a building. I mean, seriously, how often does that happen?

I need proof (credible proof) that there is something unusual before I assume that there is; much less before I am willing to entertain arguments that the unusualness was caused by some sort of "conspiracy."...

To wit: "There is no 9/11 conspiracy, YOU MORONS."

Inspector, I agree with you! I'm not arguing that they have a leg to stand on. I was slightly mistaken about the nature of evidence, and you've rightfully corrected me on that, but please don't lump me in with them.

Are you familiar with the "God of the gaps" argument, and why it is rubbish?

That's exactly my point - that's what I'm saying, that the 9/11 conspiracy only exists as a wild conclusion, not reached by any rational process, and just living in whatever desperate gaps that can be created.