Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

9/11 conspiracy Theories

Rate this topic


miz astrid
 Share

Recommended Posts

One can't protect all possible targets equally, there is always a weakest point. I think purely defensive measures are useless, only active investigation can protect. Creating yet another agency doesn't help, the old structures, especially of the intelligence services, have to be broken up, it has to be researched who screwed up and why.

Politically this is very hard to do, thus it requires a broader public support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Also, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what you're saying. It instead is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. When applied to physics (hence the name), the law states that "Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature." (Rudolf Clausius, the man who came up with the second law of TD)

So what the Hell are you talking about?"

The second law has to do in general with potential, whether that be gravitational or heat potential. I understood the second law better back then because I happened to be researching it, but I only have a bachelors degree so I had to check my understanding with people that have advanced degrees. Perhaps you know something that I do not, but I doubt that.

I'm not going to post here any more because no one can come up with any evidence that supports the official version and that is what I was looking for.

I'll check in periodically to see if anyone can find some evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to "debate" with these conspiracy theorists a few years ago before being an objectivist, but it is absolutely impossible. Their style of debate is:

Claim something ---> [other person refutes claim] ---> Do not acknowledge the refutation, make a claim about something else ---> [other person refutes claim] ---> repeat x100

A typical "debate" went like this:

Nut: you can see plumes coming from the towers as it collapses

Answer: air and debris is pushed out as the floors pile on each other as the tower collapses

Nut: what about the fact that the towers fell at free fall speed

Answer: no they did not, watch this video: [insert link]

Nut: what about the fact that no building has ever collapsed due to fire

Answer: no other building has been hit by a nearly fully fueled jet either

Nut: what about the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand a hit by a jet

Answer: no, it was designed to withstand the hit of a 707 with no fuel

Nut: what about building 7 then, there was no fire

Answer: [insert link to pictures where the "other side" of the building is shown]

Nut: but the owner admitted to giving the order to "pulling" the building

Answer: yes, meaning pulling the building of people, as the experts thought it was about to collapse

Nut: what about the fact that there was no airplane debris found at the pentagon

Answer: yes there was, see [insert links to pictures]

etc. etc. etc.

And once the particular "debate" is over, the same person will continue to give the same statements in other "debates". Gets pretty annoying, pretty fast......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have spoken to "nuts" who didn't do any research for themselves. It is impossible to argue that there was a conspiracy because there are so many missing informations about what happened.

Unanswered questions that pop into my mind when thinking about 9/11 are for example:

How did they manage that the planes/pilots did not send a distress signal?

Why did they choose these specific routes for the planes (i.e. fly away from their target for quite a while)?

Why did they switch off the transponders at these very specific times (radar coverage?)?

Why did they select that certain building part of the Pentagon for the attack (it was being renovated at that time)?

What happened on the plane during the time of which we have no recordings?

What about the results of the investigation into the flight schools?

Maybe we will know in 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to argue that there was a conspiracy because there are so many missing informations about what happened.
With any incident like 9/11, where most of the participants and witnesses are dead, there is going to be some missing information and some unanswered questions. However, so far I’ve seen no good evidence that there was a government conspiracy behind the attacks and a lot of convincing evidence that the official version of events appears to be what actually happened. So when we are faced with a situation like this, a rational person shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to a bunch of internet-based conspiracy speculation any more than a rational person gives the benefit of the doubt to religionists who claim there is a God. In fact, the religionists make a better case for their point of view than do the 9/11 conspiracy wackos.

As far as your questions are concerned, I’m no expert on 9/11, but here are some plausible explanations:

How did they manage that the planes/pilots did not send a distress signal?
The terrorists took control of the planes relatively quickly and probably prevented this from happening. We do have recordings of several cell phone calls from people on the planes calling loved ones or to warn authorities as to what was happening. In any event, why is this important and what does it prove?

Why did they choose these specific routes for the planes (i.e. fly away from their target for quite a while)?
They chose planes headed out on long flights because they would be loaded with the maximum amount of fuel, thus causing the most possible damage. Why they didn’t immediately fly in a straight line to their targets is probably only something that one of the terrorists can answer. Again, what does this prove?

Why did they switch off the transponders at these very specific times (radar coverage?)?
Maybe that was part of their plan. The terrorists certainly knew something about the equipment on these planes and how to fly them.

Why did they select that certain building part of the Pentagon for the attack (it was being renovated at that time)?
The part of the Pentagon that was hit appears to be the part that was in the flight path of the plane. I doubt they selected any specific part of the Pentagon other than the part that they could most easily crash into.

What happened on the plane during the time of which we have no recordings?
Again, these guys knew something about the planes and apparently were able to turn off the cockpit recorders at some point. What do you think happened on the planes during this time and how does that indicate there is more here than meets the eye?

What about the results of the investigation into the flight schools?
What about them? These guys took flight training from some schools, at least one of which was in Florida. What else would you suspect we should know about this aspect of the incident?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, so far I’ve seen no good evidence that there was a government conspiracy behind the attacks and a lot of convincing evidence that the official version of events appears to be what actually happened.

Irrelevant if information was withheld. I look at it like a case in court.

The first step is to understand what happened. From what is available it is impossible to say either way. I'd love to believe the official story if it did explain how it happened.

So when we are faced with a situation like this, a rational person shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to a bunch of internet-based conspiracy speculation any more than a rational person gives the benefit of the doubt to religionists who claim there is a God. In fact, the religionists make a better case for their point of view than do the 9/11 conspiracy wackos.

How would you call someone, who argues that there is not enough evidence to support the official story, that there are many open questions and that a proper investigation is required?

As far as your questions are concerned, I’m no expert on 9/11, but here are some plausible explanations:

Well, I'm looking for evidence. Some of the points could be cleared up if certain documents were released.

The terrorists took control of the planes relatively quickly and probably prevented this from happening.

Well, that is obvious. The question is HOW they did it.

We do have recordings of several cell phone calls from people on the planes calling loved ones or to warn authorities as to what was happening.

Maybe the recordings should be released (yes, some of them were, some others were destroyed).

In any event, why is this important and what does it prove?

To figure out how planes can be secured against that in future. Even if it is impossible to secure a plane against a hostile takeover, it should be possible to detect if such a takeover took place in order to inform forces on the ground.

They chose planes headed out on long flights because they would be loaded with the maximum amount of fuel, thus causing the most possible damage.

The question is why did they continue to fly away from their targets after they captured the planes. They turned their planes exactly when they left primary (west coast) radar cover. Why?

Again, what does this prove?

If we knew the reason why they have flown this route the defensive systems could be improved. Obviously they were "dodging" something.

Otherwise it seems strange that they risked to fly such an elaborate maneuver.

Maybe that was part of their plan. The terrorists certainly knew something about the equipment on these planes and how to fly them.

The point isn't that they switched off the transponders, but when they switched them off. I can't figure it out.

The part of the Pentagon that was hit appears to be the part that was in the flight path of the plane. I doubt they selected any specific part of the Pentagon other than the part that they could most easily crash into.

Well, I'm no pilot, but when I wanted to "land" in the Pentagon I would fly a straight line and not a 180 degree turn.

Again, these guys knew something about the planes and apparently were able to turn off the cockpit recorders at some point.

Yes, obviously. Still I would like to know.

What do you think happened on the planes during this time and how does that indicate there is more here than meets the eye?

I don't know what happened. Too bad the black boxes are not available :o

What about them? These guys took flight training from some schools, at least one of which was in Florida. What else would you suspect we should know about this aspect of the incident?

I was refering to the possible connections of the owners of the flight schools to the terrorists. This lead was never followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was refering to the possible connections of the owners of the flight schools to the terrorists. This lead was never followed.

A lead is a clue or piece of evidence. They didn't follow that lead because there is no lead. An investigation can't follow up on any possibility anyone can imagine, because the possibilities are endless.

Instead, they follow leads, and answer questions that are relevant to establishing what happened and who is responsible. Those questions were answered, beyond any doubt. (Four planes were hijacked from airports that were named, by nineteen members of Al Qaeda.) It doesn't matter why the pilots didn't send a warning or where exactly the terrorists learned to turn off some piece of equipment. There's no evidence whatsoever to think that the pilots, or the owners of schools, or members of the government were involved, so it would be a completely irrational move to start going down that path. They would find nothing relevant to the investigation.

As for the idea that you would like to know insignificant details, go ahead and investigate those details. There is nothing whatsoever stopping you from contacting witnesses, looking at records, requesting documented evidence under the Freedom of Information Act, etc. But it is not the FBI's job to answer whatever 9/11 trivia questions the public may have on what happened in the five seconds between 8:55.30 and 8:55.35. Their job is to establish what the crime was and find the people responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lead is a clue or piece of evidence. They didn't follow that lead because there is no lead. An investigation can't follow up on any possibility anyone can imagine, because the possibilities are endless.

:lol:

Yes, that is a true statement. They can't follow EVERY lead.

But I think looking at the connections that the 19 people made during their stay in the US is not just "any possibility anyone can imagine" but very straightforward.

Instead, they follow leads, and answer questions that are relevant to establishing what happened and who is responsible. Those questions were answered, beyond any doubt. (Four planes were hijacked from airports that were named, by nineteen members of Al Qaeda.)

The network of people behind the attacks was never uncovered.

It doesn't matter why the pilots didn't send a warning or where exactly the terrorists learned to turn off some piece of equipment. There's no evidence whatsoever to think that the pilots, or the owners of schools, or members of the government were involved, so it would be a completely irrational move to start going down that path. They would find nothing relevant to the investigation.

Why would it irrational to ask those people that someone like Atta had direct contact with before the attack?

Someone had financed the operation so a proper investigation goes step by step back in time.

I don't get your reasoning. I can understand that you say that you see no evidence for a conspiracy. But arguing that the official investigation into 9/11 was proper? mmh...

As for the idea that you would like to know insignificant details, go ahead and investigate those details. There is nothing whatsoever stopping you from contacting witnesses, looking at records, requesting documented evidence under the Freedom of Information Act, etc. But it is not the FBI's job to answer whatever 9/11 trivia questions the public may have on what happened in the five seconds between 8:55.30 and 8:55.35. Their job is to establish what the crime was and find the people responsible.

Then let's all hope the FBI will do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Why don't we take a look at the innumerable examples of absolute, wretched failure by the Bush administration....

Then consider the likelihood that they would be successful in committing the worst terrorist attack in this country's history on its own people, in the middle of broad daylight, in the busiest and most economically-vibrant city in the country.

I know, this isn't much of a rational argument, but the humor behind this is still amusing to me... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we take a look at the innumerable examples of absolute, wretched failure by the Bush administration....

Then consider the likelihood that they would be successful in committing the worst terrorist attack in this country's history on its own people, in the middle of broad daylight, in the busiest and most economically-vibrant city in the country.

You ignore possible (criminal) negligence of the parties involved (military, intelligence agencies, state department etc.). You don't necessarily commit a crime just by being directly involved in its execution. If leads weren't followed before (and after) that day then it has to be determined why and the responsible persons have to be persecuted.

I know, this isn't much of a rational argument, but the humor behind this is still amusing to me... :P

Well, it's not rational because your argument presents a false dichotomy. "Either it was exactly as the official story or the whole government was involved in every step of the attack.", there are alternatives, you know :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ignore possible (criminal) negligence of the parties involved (military, intelligence agencies, state department etc.).

Unless you have some evidence that the rest of us have been ignoring, we are ignoring exactly nothing in reality. We are just ignoring things that originated in your imagination.

Plus, criminal negligence is a crime commited by people who endanger others' lives through their own actions, not by people who fail to protect others' lives from murderers.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you have some evidence that the rest of us have been ignoring, we are ignoring exactly nothing in reality. We are just ignoring things that originated in your imagination.

It's very easy to provide evidence that the investigation into 9/11 did not meet the standards of an usual judicial proceeding.

Plus, criminal negligence is a crime commited by people who endanger others' lives through their own actions, not by people who fail to protect others' lives from murderers.

Well, the least thing that should happen is that those people are replaced by people who are more able and that the system by which people are selected and act is reexamined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to provide evidence that the investigation into 9/11 did not meet the standards of an usual judicial proceeding.

This is news to me, because everything I've seen indicates that the investigation was thorough and the available leads were pursued to their logical ends. There was also a 9/11 Commission report issued that did a pretty comprehensive review of the facts surrounding the attacks. Now you may or may not agree with all of the 9/11 Commission’s findings and recommendations, but I’m not aware of any serious claims that their work was somehow a whitewash or less than complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to provide evidence that the investigation into 9/11 did not meet the standards of an usual judicial proceeding.

To me, it's even news that this was a judicial proceeding, and I definitely disagree with your implicit claim that it should have been. It was an investigation which set out to find who was behind the attacks and where they hid afterward, not a trial of the US government.

Is that what you mean, that the US government (or its leadership and the leaderships of the agencies) should have been put on trial which followed all the standards of a judicial proceeding (with defense lawyers, prosecutors and a judge)?

P.S. You did not answer my statement that the idea of the existence of someone in the US government who was criminally negligent is strictly a product of your imagination. What concrete evidence or lead do you have, that this is the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it's even news that this was a judicial proceeding, and I definitely disagree with your implicit claim that it should have been. It was an investigation which set out to find who was behind the attacks and where they hid afterward, not a trial of the US government.

A judicial proceeding provides the framework for a proper investigation ending in a proper judgement.

Actions are not justified without a proper judgement.

Is that what you mean, that the US government (or its leadership and the leaderships of the agencies) should have been put on trial which followed all the standards of a judicial proceeding (with defense lawyers, prosecutors and a judge)?

It doesn't matter who you put on trial. If you put an innocent person on trial then a proper court will find him innocent.

I would have put the most obvious persons (these 19 persons named by the FBI) on trial in order to find out possible accessories to the murder.

Instead those 19 persons were 'convicted' (as far as this is possible, they are called "hijackers" which implies a conviction) without a trial.

P.S. You did not answer my statement that the idea of the existence of someone in the US government who was criminally negligent is strictly a product of your imagination. What concrete evidence or lead do you have, that this is the case?

I can't provide evidence in the sense as it is used in front of a court. I know of leads that lead me to believe possible negligence. I don't know if these acts constitute criminal negligence, for that I don't know enough of the court rulings and the law involved. I don't want to list the leads here until we agree on the principles involved concerning the investigation.

@gags:

It doesn't matter if I agree or not agree with the report. The point is that the investigation was incomplete. I would be content with any result of an investigation if the investigation was done properly. And yes, there are many people who don't share my view and pass judgement on the US government ('they did it'). It's easy to dismiss their claims because they base their claims on privately collected newspaper articles and personal investigation, not on a proper court proceeding. And there is also a number of people (like me) who would favor a new official investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to list the leads here until we agree on the principles involved concerning the investigation.

We won't agree with what the investigation should have been like, if you think a trial is the most efficient way to establish the truth about a terrorist attack like 9/11. (I can't even imagine where we would get the judges from, should we ask the UN General Assembly to select them?) I think the best way to establish the truth is to let the FBI investigate and then publish their methods and conclusions, for everyone to see. Which happened, and it was all done with congressional oversight.

But I don't see how you backing up your claim with evidence has to do with the investigation. I am arguing against your latest claim, which I understand to be this: there's a conspiracy in the US government to cover up some people's negligence. So, what specific evidence do you have of this conspiracy?

The lack of a trial is not evidence--there was no need for supposed conspirators to prevent a trial from taking place, since there was never any significant push in government, or public opinion, to have one, or any reason to need one. I think it would've been a huge waste of time and focus to have one, at any point in the past eight years.

You're asking for a trial, and bringing up its absence as the only argument, so far, for the need to have a trial. That's not a valid argument to have a trial. Trials, sponsored by government entities, are for establishing suspected criminals' guilt, not for establishing historical truths, as a public service. If you want the truth, establish it yourself, don't ask some Court sponsored by Congress or the UN to establish it for you--that is not the proper function of government.

If you think there is public demand for another debate, this time in the format of a trial, you should find an impartial, private enterprise or group of experts to fund and conduct it, completely independently from the US government. Otherwise, the US can't win: if they're involved in any proceedings, that's the reason why the conclusion is tainted, if they're not, that's cited as proof they're hiding something.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with existing topic. - sN ***

I couldn't find anything with a forum search, so I'll just make a new thread.

I know this is old news, but I was curious. Who here believes there was a conspiracy, and who here doesn't? For what reasons?

All of the evidence in support of a conspiracy has been addressed point-by-point. Reading through one of these point-by-point rebuttals, I found that I could accept a lot of the stuff I used to vehemently reject. The steel was weakened by high temperatures? Sure, I can accept that. The smoke blowing out of the buildings as they fell were just air compressed by the falling floors? Okay, I can accept that too.

That the multitude of intact floors below the initial collapse points somehow provided little to no resistance, not even in the form of inertia to slow the momentum of the collapse, and allowed both buildings to fall at freefall speeds? No, I can't accept that.

Thoughts?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the multitude of intact floors below the initial collapse points somehow provided little to no resistance, not even in the form of inertia to slow the momentum of the collapse, and allowed both buildings to fall at freefall speeds? No, I can't accept that.

Nor should you. You should challenge the conspiracy nuts to prove that the various flloors (or any one floor they wish to focus on) fell at freefall speed. You'll find that it is a silly, absurd fabrication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is old news, but I was curious. Who here believes there was a conspiracy, and who here doesn't? For what reasons?

For the last time: yes, there was a conspiracy, it was very well documented.

19 men, plus an undetermined number of other men, conspired to hijack four aircraft and crash them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon and a target unkown.

What's so hard to beieve that what actually happened actually happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gags:

It doesn't matter if I agree or not agree with the report. The point is that the investigation was incomplete. I would be content with any result of an investigation if the investigation was done properly. And yes, there are many people who don't share my view and pass judgement on the US government ('they did it'). It's easy to dismiss their claims because they base their claims on privately collected newspaper articles and personal investigation, not on a proper court proceeding. And there is also a number of people (like me) who would favor a new official investigation.

What specific part of the investigation wasn't done to your satisfaction?

What do you mean with "very well documented"? Are you refering to the records that were officially released to the public?

What is supposed to have been kept secret that would have shed any additional light on the events of 9/11? By the way, if it's secret, how do we know it exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What specific part of the investigation wasn't done to your satisfaction?

What is supposed to have been kept secret that would have shed any additional light on the events of 9/11? By the way, if it's secret, how do we know it exists?

There was an official investigation, it produced a report.

New information since then has come out.

This information needs to be looked at by a new official investigation.

Just a few points that come to my mind:

* flight schools

* WTC remainings

* mobile phone calls (esp. flight 77)

* flight data recorder (Pentagon)

* witness reports of the air controllers

* possible criminal negligence of people in charge (air defense, early warnings etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an official investigation, it produced a report.

New information since then has come out.

This information needs to be looked at by a new official investigation.

Just a few points that come to my mind:

* flight schools

* WTC remainings

* mobile phone calls (esp. flight 77)

* flight data recorder (Pentagon)

* witness reports of the air controllers

* possible criminal negligence of people in charge (air defense, early warnings etc.)

* flight schools – We know the terrorists trained at flight schools like the one in Venice Florida. They represented that they were interested in becoming commercial pilots. I’ve not heard any evidence that someone at the flight schools knew anything about their plans. What else is there to learn about this topic?

* WTC remaining – It has been more than 8 years since the attack and I’ve been to the site a number of times. All of the WTC remains have been cleared and taken to a landfill. They are putting up new structures at the site, as they should be. 8 years later, what could one possibly find in the landfill that would shed any additional light on what we already know?

* mobile phone calls (esp. flight 77) – What isn’t clear about these?

* flight data recorder (Pentagon) – Didn’t the terrorists know how to turn off the recorders? Also, this plane was almost completely destroyed. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary for the recorders to not have survived or been severely damaged.

* witness reports of the air controllers – What about them?

* possible criminal negligence of people in charge (air defense, early warnings etc.) Nobody knew that the terrorists were on a suicide mission until the 2nd plane hit the WTC. I’m not sure what you think should have been done, but the idea of shooting down one or more planes full of civilian passengers on 9/11 is a fantasy. It is something that might be done now, but on 9/11/01 the true depths of the terrorists’ insanity wasn’t widely known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...