Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

by EX7EY Fri 28 Oct 2016, 5:28 pm

First topic message reminder :

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that Shocked

by Electric Demon Sun 30 Oct 2016, 9:11 pm

Can anyone actually tell me what importance to the plot bringing down WT7 held? Surely bringing down the two massive ones, and causing damage to the Pentagon would have done the job?

Were the authorities worried that Joe Public weren't going to be angry enough unless WT7 gets it too?

by Rowley Sun 30 Oct 2016, 9:15 pm

Cassius Zhi wrote:Can anyone actually tell me what importance to the plot bringing down WT7 held? Surely bringing down the two massive ones, and causing damage to the Pentagon would have done the job?

Were the authorities worried that Joe Public weren't going to be angry enough unless WT7 gets it too?

Good question, because take WT7 out of the mix and the rest of the plot is a model of rational thinking and sensible planning.

by Guest Sun 30 Oct 2016, 9:33 pm

Rowley wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:
Herman Jaeger wrote:I just want to clarify- are people saying they believe fire could have brought down WTC7 in that fashion?
Do you believe a man can fly Jaeger? Have you read the NIST report Jaeger? Do you think there is any utility in reading a report that documents the research and findings of a three year multimillion dollar study into the collapse of the WTC7 building?

This reminds me of an opening gambit often used by Vincent Bugliosi, who debunks JFK conspiracies. When speaking to a room he often opens by asking 'how many people believe the conclusions of the Warren Report?' this is normally greeted by 90% of hands going up.

His next question tends to be how many people have read all of the Warren Report? Less than 10% of hands tend to stay up. I've not read something but remain fairly confident it's nonsense. For people who put such stock in science this is a thoroughly unscientific approach to a subject.

It's like the following:
A: "I bought this gizmo and it doesn't work"
Support staff: "Have you read the instructions?"
A: "No".
Support staff: "Read the instructions"
A: "Do I have to?"
Support staff: "It's advisable".

by Herman Jaeger Sun 30 Oct 2016, 9:40 pm

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/

by Guest Sun 30 Oct 2016, 9:42 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Sorry mate this is just to you- DO you specifically believe that fire brought down WTC7 in that fashion?

Just a yes or no will suffice

I believe the NIST and associated studies making use of the available information, including details of the building structure, details of the fire, failure of the sprinkler system, analysis of the girders, analysis of the properties of the composite materials, analysis of sound and video footage demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the conclusions of the NIST study is well supported by the evidence. There is zero evidence that WTC7 was packed full of chemical explosives and that the available evidence does not support the contention that WTC7 was brought down by chemical explosives. I also believe strongly that you will now provide a link to an internet lunatic explaining why the NIST and related studies are wrong and part of a government cover up. thumbsup

by 3fingers Sun 30 Oct 2016, 9:43 pm

Herman, you dont need to be a structural engineer to realise that when two enormous sky scrapers collapse tremors are created. WT7 would have been close to the epicentre of the 'quake' therefore the foundations and structure would have been damaged. Saying the collapse was caused by fire alone is nonsense, though it certainly contributed.

by Herman Jaeger Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:00 pm

This bloke doesn't sound like a lunatic:

https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/15/911-how-it-costs-you-friends/

by Herman Jaeger Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:19 pm

3fingers wrote:Herman, you dont need to be a structural engineer to realise that when two enormous sky scrapers collapse tremors are created. WT7 would have been close to the epicentre of the 'quake' therefore the foundations and structure would have been damaged. Saying the collapse was caused by fire alone is nonsense, though it certainly contributed.

I just can't buy that WTC7 was anything other than a controlled demolition when you compare it to other videos of controlled demolitions

Let's just say it was Mossad all they need is access to the twin towers the web could be kept very small

by Guest Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:22 pm

On another forum someone wanted to know what the evidence was for the Earth being round and not flat. When evidence was present to him he wondered if the evidence presented to him had been doctored or he would ignore the answer and come up with some other thing indicating that the Earth was flat and that the Earth being round was a hoax. He often posted links to websites claiming the earth being round was a great hoax. After a while it became obvious that this person was opaque to reasoning and was just taking the opportunity to present his own theory or to troll the forum.

by Ent Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:25 pm

They must have been taking the urine.

by Guest Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:26 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:
3fingers wrote:Herman, you dont need to be a structural engineer to realise that when two enormous sky scrapers collapse tremors are created. WT7 would have been close to the epicentre of the 'quake' therefore the foundations and structure would have been damaged. Saying the collapse was caused by fire alone is nonsense, though it certainly contributed.

I just can't buy that WTC7 was anything other than a controlled demolition when you compare it to other videos of controlled demolitions

Let's just say it was Mossad all they need is access to the twin towers the web could be kept very small

Bingo! I fear you have finally revealed yourself. As I mentioned before many conspiracy theorists have a certain worldview they wish to preserve.

by Herman Jaeger Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:31 pm

They set up ACE 80 odd employers all agents and it's not beyond the realms of possibility they fit the devices over the course of a few months/years

Nice sea of oil in Iraq 500 years worth

by Guest Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:32 pm

Ent wrote:They must have been taking the urine.

They were very consistent and persistent - never breaking cover to say they were trolling. Flat Earthers are obvious, but there are other subjects that are less obvious whether someone is trolling or just strongly deluded or has some other "issues".

by Guest Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:43 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:They set up ACE 80 odd employers all agents and it's not beyond the realms of possibility they fit the devices over the course of a few months/years

Nice sea of oil in Iraq 500 years worth

I am sure Ex7ey and Emancipator can support this line of thinking. You are certainly not alone in this thinking. What is the truth, there lies the rub.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:03 pm

The beauty about conspiracy theories is how self-contained they are. You try to counter with the facts established by the investigation? Aha! They would say that, wouldn't they? They're part of the cover-up. The official explanation doesn't mention the crackpot theories? Aha! Proof they're hiding something!

Remember the scientific principle. Once you have a theory (of any kind), you should seek not elements which back it, but try as hard as you can to disprove it. Rowley (among others) offers compelling arguments for why the conspiracy idea is highly improbable. As far as I can see the arguments against the official version are basically:
- Governments lie and have lied in the past. True of course, but they also on occasion tell the truth plenty often. Inconclusive (i.e. cannot invalidate hypothesis of official version being true with these arguments).
- Buildings don't collapse like that. For this argument to be conclusive you would have to repeat the experiment of crashing planes into the same spot a lot of times. If on none of these occasions the buildings collapse in the same manner then you might have a point. As it is, assertion hasn't been proved.

Also, the link to Iraq is a bit tenuous. 9/11 gave the US the justification for "intervening" in Afghanistan (displacing the Taliban), Iraq was something else. Otherwise, why not go the whole hog and make Saddam responsible for 9/11 rather than Bin-Laden? Would have saved the lie over WMDs...

by Mad for Chelsea Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:26 pm

OK I've actually read the whole thread now: I no longer know whether to laugh or bang my head against the wall repeatedly. But to recap, here is apparently what the FBI/Mossad/the Illuminati/Darth Vader came up with:

1) Hijack some planes and fly them into the WTC buildings (and a few others).
2) Simultaneously, get a team of demolition experts to manage a perfectly controlled demolition of said buildings (as well as one other which we're not going to bother flying a plane into first for some reason). This will be tricky, as a demolition of buildings this large has never been attempted before, and even getting a controlled demolition of buildings five times smaller is fiendishly difficult.
3) Hope nobody notices that flying planes into buildings shouldn't cause them to collapse like that. Use our control of all media, government organisations etc. to ensure our version of the truth is the only one given airtime.
4) Blame Bin-Laden for the attack, use as an excuse for regime change in Afghanistan.
5) This presumably gets the American public used to the idea of wars in the Middle-East again. Then a few years later spin another yarn about Saddam having some WMDs, remove him and nick all his oil. Result!

Erm... Seems rather silly, no? Let's assume for the moment that the end-game was nicking the Iraqi oil, and that the path chosen was the WTC attack. Immediate questions.
Why bother with both 1) and 2)?
Why not just fly the planes into the buildings?
Or if you really want to make sure they're destroyed, why not just blow them up (in an uncontrolled manner) without bothering with the planes at all?
Why bother destroying the third tower at all, particularly if it's only going to arouse suspicion? Would two towers destroyed not already be enough?
Similarly, why bother with 4) and 5)? Why not just blame Saddam straight off, without the need for another elaborate lie?

Seriously, the whole scheme looks so incredibly convoluted, there are so many things that could go wrong (not least with the scale of the cover-up needed for 3) for instance), and it seems that in five minutes most people could come up with a much simpler plan which would be far more likely to work.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 11:16 am

Herman Jaeger wrote:
3fingers wrote:Herman, you dont need to be a structural engineer to realise that when two enormous sky scrapers collapse tremors are created. WT7 would have been close to the epicentre of the 'quake' therefore the foundations and structure would have been damaged. Saying the collapse was caused by fire alone is nonsense, though it certainly contributed.

I just can't buy that WTC7 was anything other than a controlled demolition when you compare it to other videos of controlled demolitions

Let's just say it was Mossad all they need is access to the twin towers the web could be kept very small

So Mossad are in cahoots with Al Qaeda?

by **superflyweight** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 11:23 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Herman Jaeger wrote:
3fingers wrote:Herman, you dont need to be a structural engineer to realise that when two enormous sky scrapers collapse tremors are created. WT7 would have been close to the epicentre of the 'quake' therefore the foundations and structure would have been damaged. Saying the collapse was caused by fire alone is nonsense, though it certainly contributed.

I just can't buy that WTC7 was anything other than a controlled demolition when you compare it to other videos of controlled demolitions

Let's just say it was Mossad all they need is access to the twin towers the web could be kept very small

So Mossad are in cahoots with Al Qaeda?

... and the reverse vampires.

by **Hero** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 11:31 am

Dr Acula from Scrubs?

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 11:42 am

Can't have a serious conversation with anyone who believes WTC7 wasn't brought down by a controlled explosion

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 11:45 am

You don't have a clue, you've come to a conclusion based on no information and no knowledge.

by 3fingers Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:02 pm

The article from the Europhysics Journal, linked from the freethoughtproject article, which Herman posted is an 'interesting' read. The NOTE FROM THE EDITORS sum its worth up though...

"This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation. However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors".

I think the disclaimer tells us all we.need to to know, really. It was a fun read though, and I'm sure sales increased for that month.

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:06 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't have a clue, you've come to a conclusion based on no information and no knowledge.

And you're a comedy account

by **Hero** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:10 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Can't have a serious conversation with anyone who believes WTC7 wasn't brought down by a controlled explosion

What benefit was it for the US Government to destroy that tower?

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:11 pm

That's a really sensible and thought out response, obviously you must have engineering qualifications coming out your ears to know despite the NIST stating otherwise that it was a controlled demolition. I'm clearly meant to believe your inane beliefs on the subject despite it being based on absolutely nothing, it's the same with all crackpot nuts online they don't have a clue about it.

by Ent Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:14 pm

To be fair he watched a YouTube video of a controlled demolition and one of wtc7 collapsing and they look vaguely similar.

Surely that passes for science?

by Rowley Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:14 pm

The other problem with conspiracy theories is the internet. Basically the internet exists as the least discerning publisher in the world. Pre internet if someone wanted to publish something about structural engineering they had two main outlets. The first was to try and get a publisher to publish the work, this meant either a specialist academic publisher or the in house academic branch of a major publisher. To do this the publisher would expect you to provide at least a couple of peer reviews from verifiable and respected experts in the field. In house they would probably have specialists who would read through your work and see if it was academically robust. This would be a long winded process, it would involve rewrites, fact checking, source verification and so on and so forth. I have never written a book but have spoken to plenty of people who have and the process is hugely and tediously long winded. From conception to publication can be a number of years.

The other route was to try and get your work published in an academic journal. Chances are the editorial board of a specialist engineering journal would be experts in their field so they would vet your work before publishing, they would check your references and sources are credible and correctly quoted, they would also expect peer reviews and would analyse whether the hypothesis you are testing is valid and the conclusions you reach are reasonable ones to reach based on the evidence you have available and the research you have done. The simple reality is 99% of conspiracy stuff would not cut the mustard and would be rejected and never see the light of day.

There are no such tests with the internet, any person can buy a small corner of it reasonably inexpensively and publish whatever they want to their hearts content. Frequently we have to just accept their expertise on the subject on little more than trust. The issue is we have all acknowledged we know next to nothing about Structural Engineering and so none of us are capable of performing the filtration test that would previously have been done by the editors and publishers. Do conspiracy theory websites perform such exacting tests on what they publish and the person writing it? My suspicion is their main criteria for publishing is that the article supports the argument they are seeking to put forward.

The problem this creates is if a person writes about a subject and sounds suitably proficient and knowledgeable about the subject it is extremely difficult for us to know if he is talking drivel or not. I have read some of the conspiracy stuff and all the talk of burn rates, accelerants, chemical explosions and god knows what other terms they use sounds remarkably persuasive. Emancipator is a doctor I believe, I am fairly sure if he wanted he could write a piece about his specialist field which sounds mightily impressive and convincing to the likes of me and you, but which was also complete drivel, which any person of knowledge in his field could tear to pieces in minutes. To us though, with no formal medical training or qualifications we would be woefully ill equipped to do likewise, no matter how lacking in merit what he wrote may be.

by 3fingers Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:16 pm

I find it funny when 9/11 conspiracy theorists have their argumements explained away, then they say "yeah, but what about WT7!?"

What about it? Are we to dismiss every shed of evidence and rational counter claim, and believe in the preposterous, because the WT7 collapse is difficult (not impossible) to explain?

Conspiracies require a good degree of faith; or in other words, a belief in something ridiculous despite evidence to the contrary.

(much like organised religion)

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:36 pm

Sorry no way a fire brings down WTC7 like that it would break off in pieces

That was a perfectly controlled implosion

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:40 pm

What knowledge are you basing that on? I'm guessing absolutely none.

A fire alone didn't bring WTC7 down anyway, it was caused by severe structural damage when large debris from one of the towers hit it yet you continually bang on about it being a fire.

by **Hero** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:43 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Sorry no way a fire brings down WTC7 like that it would break off in pieces

That was a perfectly controlled implosion

I'll ask again.

What benefit was it for the US Government to destroy that tower?

by **rIck_dAgless** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:43 pm

for example:

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:44 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What knowledge are you basing that on? I'm guessing absolutely none.

A fire alone didn't bring WTC7 down anyway, it was caused by severe structural damage when large debris from one of the towers hit it yet you continually bang on about it being a fire.

I'm not arguing with an alias

That would make me a madman

by 3fingers Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:44 pm

In light of the contributors previous posts and Hermans apparent disregard for them, it now appears he is a troll.

Good Troll though, it took a while for me to figure it out.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:48 pm

You're not arguing because you are unable to argue your point due to a severe lack of knowledge, you can deflect away from that but it doesn't not change the fact you know nothing.

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:52 pm

Well yes fingers has spotted that I was indeed being slightly contrarian but only because I'm certain a fire can not bring down a building like the way it did WTC7 not with all that steel just goes against physics

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:52 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're not arguing because you are unable to argue your point due to a severe lack of knowledge, you can deflect away from that but it doesn't not change the fact you know nothing.

See above

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:56 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Well yes fingers has spotted that I was indeed being slightly contrarian but only because I'm certain a fire can not bring down a building like the way it did WTC7 not with all that steel just goes against physics

No it doesn't go against physics at all, if you'd read the official reports they would explain it to you but it's beyond your knowledge.

The NIST state it's possible but you with no knowledge can't understand it so don't believe it can happen.

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:02 pm

I don't believe what NIST says and many scientists obviously refute such claims also

See above..

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:05 pm

Why do you not believe what they say, you must have some real knowledge on the subject but are unwilling to share it. I've yet to seen a reputable scientist who refutes such claims, just a bunch of internet crackpots who clearly are not world leaders in their field.

by **rIck_dAgless** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:09 pm

by Guest Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:14 pm

Rowley there are different types of doctors. A medical doctor is a sort of glorified bachelors with medical practice - based on imbibing of knowledge and clinical practice. It doesn't qualify them to carry out (medical) research - the production of new knowledge, experience and ability in carrying out new knowledge research. In the past your local barber used to also be your local surgeon.

Before one begins research one has to read everything that goes before to ensure your research is original. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they are generally too lazy, not interested in or incapable of, reading the relevant literature, including research literature. One has to read it first before critiquing it. For example Emancipator in one of his comments asks a rhetorical question: "What about all the floors that were not damaged by fire? How did they just collapse so fast?" That has been answered. But Emancipator wasn't interested in finding the answer. Or if he found the answer he conveniently ignored it, or referenced some "lunatic", saying it is all wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_initiation

This gives a basic explanation and calculation of the speed of collapse. The important part is from 2.30 mins onwards which shows video footage of the collapse - which starts at the point of impact of the aircraft and then the building above the point of impact falls as a mass block, successively into the floors below (bang - bang - bang). That is video evidence of how WT1 and WT2 collapsed and that is not chemical explosives - that is the top section of the building falling through the lower floor sections successively, and collapsing each floor section separately. I likened it in a comment above to a domino effect, structural engineers call it a pancake collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzInIjD6nKw

by Rowley Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:18 pm

Emancipator was just mentioned as an example, and trust me it would not take too much medical knowledge to baffle me!

by Rowley Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:26 pm

This is what amazes me with conspiracy theorists, they have one thought, which is normally based on not a lot, and on the back of that are more than willing to dismiss every other consideration no matter how compelling. Saying WT7 did not fall as it did through anything other than a controlled explosion is based largely on nothing. People with no formal training or qualifications in either explosives or structural engineering decide it fails their eye test. Added to their lack of qualifications you also have to throw into the mix the fact that the events of 9/11 were completely unprecedented so there is no reason to have any preconceived ideas as to how the building would react to such stimulus, but because it fails the eye test that is enough to establish a conspiracy.

From this point any practical questions about the motivations of those carrying out the attacks, the practicalities of planning the attacks, of planting the explosions, of covering your tracks, of the scientific explanations offered in the official investigations, of the sheer logistics of carrying out such an attack, of manipulating the global media not to ask the “right” questions can all be dismissed out of hand because a building did not fall over in the way your completely untrained eye would have expected it to do.

by Guest Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:32 pm

Rowley wrote:Emancipator was just mentioned as an example, and trust me it would not take too much medical knowledge to baffle me!

Even people who have a research doctorate can talk absolute garbage when speaking outside of their research fields, and sometimes their research fields can be extraordinarily narrow.

Also sad to say, the process by which someone can get a PhD can be lax, depending on the university and department. There have been cases of PhD retractions where fraud has been found (fiddling the results). Also many PhD students carry out research as part of a group of researchers, and benefit from putting things in their doctoral thesis that have come from other members of the research group, or they are given an instrument that works, and produces a lot of new information, without much effort from them (like a technician turning the handle and getting out new results).

At the end of the day there is a peer review process for published work, and if the work passes peer review and is published, then it is there to be critiqued by others reading the published work. But the critique itself has to pass through the peer review process if the critique is to be published, and often the authors of the original work get an opportunity to reply to that criticism, which is published alongside the criticism. That form of criticism happens when someone reading a research article spots something missed by the reviewer that puts into question the validity of the particular research. That's how science works.

by **superflyweight** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:34 pm

Yeah, but no one who owned an Apple Mac died in 9/11 and not one of you can prove otherwise.

by Guest Mon 31 Oct 2016, 1:49 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:I don't believe what NIST says and many scientists obviously refute such claims also

See above..

Basically what Hammersmith says - why are you believing one set of scientists over another? You already have agreed you have no clue on structural building collapse - so how can you differentiate between the two sets of scientists?

One set of scientists have access to all the available data, have carried out engineering tests and have state of the art modelling facilities. While another set of scientists are talking on an individual basis, without access to the available data, on generalities that is in the form of an opinion, without supporting specific evidence to back their opinion up.

by Guest Mon 31 Oct 2016, 2:01 pm

Rowley, I believe there is a wider problem than conspiracy theorists, and that is what constitutes "information" and how that information can be taken out of context to give the appearance of something else. This is when we enter into the world of political spin and marketing.

Ps I should also add many people have difficulty differentiating between opinion and evidence.

by Herman Jaeger Mon 31 Oct 2016, 2:02 pm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=96syRuHvYDI

by **rIck_dAgless** Mon 31 Oct 2016, 2:52 pm

here is a really good vid (non 911 related) on how mis-information spreads across the internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjlKIjLWq-Y

by Sponsored content