9/11 and conspiracy theories

[Beto]

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."



People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."



"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.



Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

[cnorman18]

Sorry Cnorman but I won't indulge you further in this discussion.

So much for open and rational debate.

Have a nice day.

[Goat]

Sorry Cnorman but I won't indulge you further in this discussion.

I don't blame you. He asks questions that are entirely too reasonable that you can't answer.

[Beto]

It's been made clear that even though I'm the one doing most of the arguing, other members have demonstrated their unwillingness to accept the official line as sufficiently reasonable to lay any concerns to rest. I wonder if this has gone unnoticed by goat and cnorman.

[Beto]

For everyone else's benefit, I would still like to address the "radioactive question" as cnorman put it, with an analogy. Suppose a random guy is about to testify against a mafia boss. Suddenly this witness disappears, and the boss's explanations and alibi are full of holes. The absence of a body isn't a "radioactive question" outside the courthouse, where he may very well be acquitted. Dismissing any speculation or theory, with clear motivation behind, simply because the whereabouts of either a body or a plane are not sure, makes as much sense in either case.

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm trying to approach this as logically as possible.

Excellent.

What you're asking me to find reasonable is that the body or nose of the aircraft, something that gets mashed in by birds, punched through three rings, made an exit hole in C-ring considerably neat and wide

I’m not asking that or at least not as I think you are picturing it. The material, that is disintegrating matter punched out. What punched out was already FUBAR if you like. This would be nothing like an intact nose or body. However there was enough debris traveling with sufficient energy to punch out. The momentum carried by a field of disintegrating plane (not a solid object) would be greatest at the centre of the field, with momentum values diminishing towards the edge of the debris field. At the centre of the field would be FUBAR matter that came from the centre of the plane, so in this sense it was the fusselage or nose of the plane. towards the edges of the debris field there was insufficient energy to punch out. The punch out hole is circular because that is indicative of an areas at the centre of field of plane FUBARwith sufficient energy to punch out energy. The hole is relatively neat because the wall will either absorbed the energy of the debris or it will give out, and the critical momentum value was relatively evenly dispersed in the way the wall shows.

, with a burn signature on top...

The burns….soot from escaping heat and smoke for the subsequent fire.

[cnorman18]

For everyone else's benefit, I would still like to address the "radioactive question" as cnorman put it, with an analogy. Suppose a random guy is about to testify against a mafia boss. Suddenly this witness disappears, and the boss's explanations and alibi are full of holes. The absence of a body isn't a "radioactive question" outside the courthouse, where he may very well be acquitted. Dismissing any speculation or theory, with clear motivation behind, simply because the whereabouts of either a body or a plane are not sure, makes as much sense in either case.

If you're going to drop the debate, drop it. Don't pretend to and then come back with a deceptive and misleading parting shot.

The supposed absence of the plane isn't the "radioactive question" that you still refuse to acknowledge or address. That would be, How were several hundred (minimum) ordinary people convinced to participate in a plot to murder potentially as many as 100,000 of their fellow citizens, or falsify the results of the investigation of that murder, and then remain silent about it afterward?

You said you wanted to address the "radioactive question." Now let's see you actually do it.

(Predicted response: a repeat of "I refuse to indulge you further.")

[Beto]

How were several hundred (minimum) ordinary people convinced to participate in a plot to murder potentially as many as 100,000 of their fellow citizens, or falsify the results of the investigation of that murder, and then remain silent about it afterward?

How many times do I have to mention 3.3 trillion dollars missing? Something like 8000 dollars for every American citizen. Add that to the understandable idea that taking on the US government might be detrimental to one's health.

You said you wanted to address the "radioactive question." Now let's see you actually do it.

(Predicted response: a repeat of "I refuse to indulge you further.")

I hate being predictable. I don't know, nor do I claim to know, the whereabouts of Flight 77 in the event that it didn't hit the Pentagon. 9/11 isn't just an alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon. If it was, I wouldn't waste too much time around it.

If you're going to drop the debate, drop it. Don't pretend to and then come back with a deceptive and misleading parting shot.

I was advised a neck massage earlier in the thread. You might also benefit from one right about now.

[cnorman18]

How were several hundred (minimum) ordinary people convinced to participate in a plot to murder potentially as many as 100,000 of their fellow citizens, or falsify the results of the investigation of that murder, and then remain silent about it afterward?

How many times do I have to mention 3.3 trillion dollars missing? Something like 8000 dollars for every American citizen. Add that to the understandable idea that taking on the US government might be detrimental to one's health.

So all these conspirators were either stunningly venal, abject cowards, or both? Sorry, I'm not buying that for an instant.

Bribes or threats be damned, if I were asked to be a part of anything remotely like this, my response would be "Keep your f'ing money and f'ing shoot me now." And I don't think my own integrity is in any way special or superior to most people's.

Wouldn't you say the same thing? Or are you willing to become a mass murderer for a few mil?

If not, why would you even suggest that such moral cripples are this thick on the ground?

Could you be intimidated into silence on this, especially after the fact? Wouldn't you find a way to get the word out somehow? And is your life so f'ing precious that it's worth allowing the murderers of over 3,000 others to get away with it anyway?

If I even heard about this secondhand from a friend who was in it, I'd be on the phone to The New York Times about ten seconds after he left my presence. And so would you.

Where is the rash of mysterious murders of the tens of thousands who refused to sign on to this when first approached? Where are the puzzling deaths of those who finally had the stones to come forward afterward? Why is it that there were NONE of those AT ALL?

Tom Clancy wouldn't write about a plot this unworkable or fantastic. If I thought the character of the average ordinary person were this corrupt or weak, I would live in a cave on top of a mountain.

How much would you charge to become a mass murderer, Beto? What's your price?

If you don't have one, which I assume to be the case, do you think you are morally superior to the rest of America?

[Beto]

This thread has made me put two members I used to respect on ignore, and I'm unwilling to continue.

Thanks Furrowed Brow, for all your efforts, and I hope you managed to convince some members along the way.

[cnorman18]

This thread has made me put two members I used to respect on ignore, and I'm unwilling to continue.

Thanks Furrowed Brow, for all your efforts, and I hope you managed to convince some members along the way.

This thread has "made you" do nothing. Nothing.

You have made a choice about how to respond to a purely intelllectial challenge, and instead of finding a credible way to defend your position, revising it, or abandoning it, you have taken your little ball and run home.

Admitting you are wrong will put no blood on you, is not shameful, and it doesn't hurt at all. I've done it lots of times, even about things that were very important to me. But when you discover that you believe something that is false, the intellectually honest thing to do is stop believing it and believe something else.

If your position is sound, defend it. If it isn't, change it. Sitting in the closet with your fingers in your ears singing "LA LA LA" as loud as you can isn't going to solve your problem here, which has to do with understanding what a debate is for. It's about changing minds, and sometimes the mind that gets changed is your own. If you can't accept that, don't debate.

You, and others, have been telling theists for months that a position that cannot be rationally proven or at least defended should be abandoned. Where are those standards now?

You're wrong, dude. Don't blame ME.

ETA: I made my personal respect for you clear in a PM. We are taking about ideas here, not personalities. If you choose to take offense at my vehement disagreement with your ideas, I can't see that that is any problem of mine. I deal with that sort of thing every day here.