Calling Out Demolition Deniers

[Rayaan]

Dude, none of these people are telling an ounce of fact. I've heard these same people debunked. Over. And over. And over. These people aren't whistle-blowers, they're speculators and attention whores vying for 15 minutes of fame by spouting whatever sensationalist bullshit they possibly can to get cameras put in their faces; and if they happen to have a lick of knowledge "in the field" in regards to what supposedly happened, then they REALLY can cash in on it...never mind that most of these guys claim to be "engineers" or "demolitions" experts and then you dig things up on them and oh look, Michael Springmann is spewing bullshit!

And how do you know all that? I mean, have you come across anything specific that demonstrate that the whistle-blowers are actually lying?

And these people used to work in government positions and most of them, after becoming whisteblowers, were fired from their jobs and then even ignored by others. And not only that, but they have also risked their own lives by blowing the whistle, and many of them were prosecuted for doing so, while some of them are in prison right now. And they know that they could have probably made more money if they didn't blow the whistle because then they could have kept working for the government instead of being kicked out for being a whistleblower.

So, ironically, what you said about the whistleblowers are contradictory to all the unproven motives that you just attached to them yourself ...

Government Protects Criminals by Attacking Whistleblowers

Protecting Torturers, Prosecuting Whistleblowers

This moron claims he was "ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants."

One little problem: The embassy's consular officer is the one who has final authority on the issuing of visas; not the guy who oversees the bureaucratic administrative offices of the visa credentials. Without signature, documentation, and declaration by the consulate, the visa is NOT VALID. They wouldn't order the third-in-command to do shit, they'd tell the consulate to do it and this attention-whore wouldn't have even heard so much as a peep about it.

That doesn't like a problem to me, because whether or not Michael Springmann had the "final authority" on issuing visas, he was still in charge of issuing visas because he was a chief of the visa section at the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. So he was still an authority regardless, and he is telling us what happened while he was working there as head of the consulate. But if you doubt him or if you want to cast aspersions on what he is telling us, then your claims about him have less of a credibility unless you can verify them with facts and evidence because he is the authority, not you.

Sprigman testified that he rejected hundreds of shoddy and incomplete visa applications. He denied the applications at first, but then he received phone calls from CIA officers who repeatedly over-ruled him and ordered the visas to be issued even though he denied them. He complained about this to the State Department, the Justice Department, and congressional committees, and he filed FOIA requests as well, but he was just met with a blind eye for the most part.

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. [BBC, 11/6/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 11/25/2001] In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springmann denies them a visa, he gets “an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa.” Springmann refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springmann realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes “more brazen and blatant” as time goes on. On one occasion Springmann is even told, “If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind.” [CBC Radio One, 7/3/2002; Trento, 2005, pp. 344-6]

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp...bia_office


He also tells us that many of the American staff in the Department of State in Jeddah in reality were US intelligence agencies (or CIA).

See the following 3 articles on that:

There you have it. The United States of America, whose diplomatic posts are too often outposts of the CIA and NSA, was running (and, from what I can see) is likely still running a visas for terrorists program, while blaming the rest of the world for causing disasters of its own making. According to a former CIA Station Chief and a member of State's Inspector General's office, both of whom I wish to protect, at least one-third of the people who claim to work for the Department of State in reality work for one of the many U.S. intelligence agencies. In my limited experience, I would be inclined to raise that proportion which, I am inclined to believe, is increasing. (In Jeddah, all but three of the 20 or so U.S. staff worked for intelligence offices.)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Mis...5-269.html

In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. Department of State had been working hand in hand with the Saudi Arabian government, the CIA, and its asset, Osama bin Laden, to recruit fighters for the war in Afghanistan against what was then the Soviet Union. Future terrorists, recruited from all over the region as well as South Asia, were brought to Jeddah, principal city of the Hejaz, Saudi Arabia’s western province. But Jeddah, then the 5th largest visa-issuing post in the region, was not a State Department operation. Of some 20 Americans working there in 1987-1989, I can say from personal experience as then-Chief of the Visa Section that only 3 people, including myself, did not work for the CIA or the NSA (National Security Agency, the organization charged with making and breaking codes and engaging in “signals intelligence”, i.e., listening to telephone and radio communications, whether public or private).

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011...r-the-cia/

I have repeatedly been asked by journalists if I believe that the CIA was "involved" in 9/11. Such questions are sometimes attempts to discredit me as a "conspiracy theorist." I am nothing of the sort, and my answer is simple: when I was Chief of the Non-immigrant Visa Section at the United States Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, I watched dozens, if not hundreds of visa applicants who could provide no legitimate reason for visiting the US, obtain visas without difficulty. Official statements notwithstanding, the CIA was running the consulate, and protests by mere State Department employees were fruitless. In my case, such protests cost me my job.

... and a few paragraphs later ...

The CIA was (and is) heavily involved in Foreign Service posts in the Kingdom, occupying one entire floor of the embassy (possibly two), assigning case officers to high-ranking positions in Dhahran, comprising nearly the entire American staff of the consulate in Jeddah.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SPR302A.html


The last quote above rings truer when we discover that the CIA has even been operating a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia for the past two years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21350437


What is more interesting is that Springman's claim that the Jeddah consulate was heavily run by US intelligence agencies coincides with a broader investigation of the relationship between the Saudi government and the US government over the years - especially in regards to their involvement in the September attacks - according to the lead investigator of the Congressional Joint Inquiry Senator Bob Graham, his former Senate colleague Bob Kerry, as well as another CIA whistlblower named Phillip Marshall.

"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/9...tacks.html

Backed by official NTSB, FAA and black box recordings, Marshall finds the most capable and most documented group of conspirators buried deep within a Congressional Inquiry's report and retraces their work in gripping detail. Fasten your seatbelt --- the sad truth is that all of the solid evidence points to a dark collaboration between members of the Bush Administration and a covert group of Saudi government officials.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bamboozle-...1468094580

Richard Fuisz, an entrepreneur who DOES seem to have CIA connections, met with Lindauer weekly since 1994. He said that he had banned her from his office after 11 September 2001, when her ideas became "malignant" and "seditious". Lindauer later claimed that she had been a CIA asset during this period.

She may have been called "malignant" and "seditious" in the sense that she opposed or rejected whatever that Richard Fuisz was telling her to do.

And the fact that she used to have conversations and meetings with Richard Fuisz (who was an intelligence asset also), and that she learned about an attack being planned on America with explosives and airplanes even before it occurred, and that she told other people about it, and that she got banned from her office exactly on September 11, 2001, all suggest that she did have inside information about 9/11 and thus lends only more support to her claim of being a former CIA asset.

As I responded to Tiberius earlier (I know you're lurking, Tibs, can't fool me ):

Maybe she has no hard evidence for that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no good reason to support her claim either, i.e. that she worked for the CIA.

And this:

She also told some of her friends and other people about an attack on America that would occur at around August or September of 2001 and she also knew that the attack would involve the use of airplanes and explosives, which this is mentioned in many different websites, two of them which I already linked to in this post ... and all of this is more support for her claim that she did have CIA connections.

And this:

After she was finally allowed to stand in trial, it was confirmed by the witnesses present there that she was an intelligence asset and that she did warn people about 9/11.

Listen to this from 7:27 to 8:00:

---

---

And this:

Richard Fuisz being a CIA agent was also reported in a Sunday Herald newspaper in May of 2000 (as I quoted below).

It also acknowledges his connection with Susan Lindauer ... coincidence?

[snip]

http://911review.org/Lindauer/LindauerPa...Herald.txt

Going back to your comments ...

Plus her loudly repeated declarations of being an anti-war activist kind of shows, I dunno, A BIAS?? It doesn't help her case to declare these things;

I have no idea at all how just being an anti-war activist shows a bias ... bias against who?

if she were interested in maintaining her legitimacy, she would've fucking kept her yap shut about it instead of going on and on about her "peace negotiations." Seriously, peace negotiations? With the CIA? The CIA don't make peace negotiations, they kill and watch people. The fucking embassies handle diplomacy, and they have their own agents who handle matters of peace negotiations with both administrative and non-administrative contacts.

Maybe she doesn't care about maintaining her legitimacy as much as she cares about saying what is right and just. She was strongly against the war in Iraq and she knew that the US government was going to launch a false flag attack on itself so that it can justify an attack on Afghanistan and then move on to Iraq. And as an authority herself, she had the right to urge peace negotiations or at the very least express her disapproval of such a deceptive war (to the CIA or whoever she wants). I don't see anything wrong with that.

It was already known in the intelligence circles that the war in Iraq was a fraud because they knew that the claim of WMD in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was "the new Hitler and everything in the world depended on getting rid of this guy who could strike any country in the world in the next 45 minutes" were fantastic lies that were used on Americans just to win their support for a war. Susan was well-aware of this fact and that's why she opposed it so much.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs

REAL whistleblowers have credibility and information to back their claims up. Again; see Snowden for details. FAKE whistleblowers are people trying to get attention.

Susan Lindauer does have information to back her claims up, and she has done this repeatedly in her book and in her interviews. But whenever she does that, you think that she is doing all this just for getting attention and therefore she is a "fake whistleblower" according to your idiotic reasoning. So now the question is (and it's a rhetorical one so you don't have to answer this), how can a whistleblower communicate his or her credibility and knowledge to other people without trying to get attention? Maybe everyone blows the whistle for getting attention to a certain extent, but who cares if they are telling the truth at least?

What about Sibel Edmonds? Is she a fake whistleblower also? If you think so, then go ahead and provide your justification for that.


I also noticed you didn't make any comments on the following, which is the main topic of this thread:

I appreciate that you took the time to write a lengthy and verbose explanation on this subject. But, with all due respect, none of that really convinced me to be honest. You might think that I'm an absolute dumbass for disagreeing with you, but I don't care. Simply put, I don't think that smoke and fire from a jet collision would cause an entire steel building to collapse so quickly into its own footprint; there was very probably explosive materials pre-planted inside the buildings that made them go down the way they did.

And besides the issue of thermite and everything else that you said in your post, the most glaring thing that points to a controlled demolition behind the 9/11 attack is how the WTC 7 collapsed. I mean, look at the way the whole building came down in a symmetrical fashion at an accelerating, free-falling speed (in less than 7 seconds) just like a building collapses under a controlled demolition. Do you seriously think that normal smoke and office fires could have done all that in less than seven seconds? But before you answer that question, please listen to the following as carefully as you can ...

[Rayaan]

I don't mean to cast aspersion upon an entire class of people without justification,

But ironically, you did, when you wrote the following:

but this appears to be a Muslim thing, that putting a few relevant words into a google search and counting any hits as confirmation is the equivalent of research and scholarship. It isn't.

You say "this appears to be a Muslim thing" with no justification for that. And I one hundred percent disagree with such a baseless comment.

The last time I disputed Rayaan on a matter, his 'evidence' was the results of a google search, of which, the third hit in the search was a refutation of his claim.

1. Show me one place in this thread where I said that this is "evidence" of a conspiracy.

2. What google search are you talking about? Which post is that referring to?

Yet for shitheads like Rayaan, this constitutes research and evidence. I've noted similar behavior among other Muslims I've encountered on the internet, and it's a behavior which seems foreign to other intellectual communities. And it's pathetic.

It definitely does constitute research - or a part of research at least - although you sticking in the word "evidence" in your first sentence there is a straw man because I didn't say anywhere that I have evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Everything that I have posted are things that support my arguments, but not necessarily evidence. As I said before, there is a difference between evidence and support.

What things that I posted here have you refuted, apo? Nothing. You're just talking about how I suck at research ... coz you're probably just jealous.

For what it's worth, sometime in the past two years, I spent several weeks doing dedicated research on the subject, reading both the claims and the rebuttals, and watching some of the videos. What I determined is that 'truthers' lie and distort things a lot. Whenever you go to research the facts on a truther claim, what you find is significantly different from what the truther led you to believe. When they aren't lying, they're misleading with illogical argument, emotional rhetoric, JAQing off (RationalWiki: JAQing off), or playing 'blame the skeptic'. Truthers are full of shit.

Well, I'd be rather pleased if you at least attempted to back up any of your claims about these "truthers" with specific examples and/or arguments they make.

Unless you are able to do that, then your words have no weight. They are just empty words with no justification.

[Rayaan]

Ok mate, but again, the evidence for a government conspiracy simply isn't there.

Not necessarily evidence, but I have presented many things that at least strongly support that 9/11 was a governmental conspiracy when taken altogether.

Have you seen any of the links that I posted? If not, then please do.

There are not unexplained coincidences, etc, and there isn't any evidence for explosives being planted in the towers prior to the planes hitting them. If there were, then their presence would have been found in the wreckage. So there's no physical evidence for explosives being planted in the towers.

1. Seismic wave evidence
2. Forensic evidence
3. Metallurgical examination

And number 3 brings me to the following point, which is, in order to properly investigate whether or not there is physical evidence of explosives planted inside the towers, one of the most important thing to preserve and examine are the steel pieces of the buildings. The steels were the important for searching for physical evidence of explosives.

Yet that is the thing that authorities got rid of. Soon after the collapse, almost all the steel pieces from the rubble were hauled away and recycled as quickly as possible. They were carted away and melted down before the FEMA investigators got there to inspect them, so then how do you expect to find physical evidence of explosives in the wreckage?

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Only a small number of steel pieces were saved for future examination.

So that we can learn from the tragedy of September 11 (the pathetically small number of) 146 pieces of steel, were saved for future study. Of course, those responsible for September 11, want us to learn nothing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...apndxD.htm

Even from those small number of steel pieces available for inspection, scientists were still able to perform a "limited metallurgical examination" and then they found that the corrosion of the steel pieces was so extreme that they called it "a very unusual event" because it was never heard before that just fire alone can cause such an incredible damage to steel. Although that is not a direct evidence for the existence of explosives in the buildings, it does significantly support the theory of controlled demolition of the towers.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence...apndxC.htm

Furthermore, what you probably don't realise, and what most people don't realise about 7WTC is that the south side of the building gives way and collapses a full 10 seconds before the north side does. The collapse of the south side of the building is what causes catastrophic damage to the lower floors of the north side and triggers the full collapse.

Yes, the south side of the building was burning for quite a while, but even considering that, it still doesn't make sense to me how normal office fire can pull down an entire building like that just like how a freefalling brick plunges toward the ground. Something like this has never happened before in history. And I think the fires were on the 18th floor, so it wasn't happening in the lowest floor but yet the whole building came down in less than 7 seconds? That's incredible.





Even NIST admitted free fall in its final report on the World Trade Center disaster:

NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]." "Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.

So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: "Then a miracle happens."

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion."

The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysteri...-wtc-seven


And once again, almost all of Building 7's steels were hauled away and melted down before anyone was able to inspect them:

Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study. No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse. The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metal vendors and most of it was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

http://www.wtc7.net/steeldisposal.html

It is pretty much fully understood how and why the building collapsed, despite not being directly hit by a passenger jet.

Really? Please enlighten me then ...

I don't know anything about this Susan Lindauer, but all she seems to be talking about is intelligence being kept from the public, not a conspiracy.

She does say that it's a conspiracy. Watch the video that I posted in this post.

http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com...an-4-2011/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/...cia-asset/
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_whis...n_lindauer

^ Now you can learn more about her and what she said about 9/11.

[Rayaan]

None of the evidence presented convinces me that my own research is wrong. FYI, I did an MA thesis that led and concluded with the 9/11 attacks, specifically how extreme ideologies can supplant more moderate ones and begin to enact changes in behavior relatively quickly (drawing a parallel between, say, the ideologies of AQ and that of the communist anarchist Georges Sorel, a surprising synthesis I found).

Not to criticize your own efforts and sincerity on this subject, but if you read some of the most documented books written by investigative journalists, 9/11 whistleblowers, architects, and experts, you will find many compelling things about the conspiracy theory that you didn't know before. I will post some of them below.

Classified Woman - The Sibel Edmonds Story: A Memoir
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America
9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed
Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA


Secondly, you said that your MA thesis focused on "specifically how extreme ideologies can supplant more moderate ones and begin to enact changes in behavior relatively quickly," but that does not mean that you know much about the 9/11 itself nor about the CIA connections with most of the hijackers, the White House cover-ups, the whistleblowers, the use of false flag terror by the government, suppression of evidence from the 9/11 Commission, destruction of the 9/11 tapes, and so on. You have to gather a lot more information about 9/11 other than just knowing how extreme ideologies can change people's behavior relatively quickly. Information gathering is an important process when it comes to attaining knowledge about something (and that is basically what research is all about) - and after doing that - then you have to connect all the dots which will then allow you to make a more intelligent and informed decision.

The "hard evidence" will not always come and sit down right on you lap and say to you "Here you go, FC, here is the plain undeniable truth: 9/11 was inside job! Happy? Now you don't have to use your brain anymore!" ... No, and that's why you have to do more research and then, slowly and carefully, you have to combine all the pieces of information that you learned in order to get closer to the truth.

The evidence doesn't add up, and neither does the logic of such a move.

Again, I have posted many things, and most of the things have not been refuted and/or people are simply not reading what I wrote nor looking at the links that I posted.

Eyewitness to the explosions
Seismic wave evidence
Evidence of active thermite in the buildings
CIA whistleblower Susan Lindauer
The arrival of mysterious vans prior to the attacks
NORAD hijacking drills
Censorship of 9/11 whistleblowers
Destruction of the 9/11 tapes
More whistleblowers
9/11 hijackers' passports were issued by the CIA

and the list may get even bigger than this.


As for the logic of such a move, I have already discussed the possible motives behind USA to attack itself which all seem to fit with what forces are doing right now in the Gulf Region and what the planned to do even before the September attacks. The timing of the attack, America's plans to go war, it's foreknowledge about the attacks, the heavy CIA involvement behind the evolution of Al-Qaeda, the CIA links between the hijackers, and many other things that I posted throughout this thread, in my opinion, strongly suggest that 9/11 was a pre-planned terror attack that the US government played a major part in. All these pieces of information support each other (instead of contradicting each other) and that's what makes the 9/11 conspiracy theory even more likely to be true, i.e. because it is consistent. And I think it is just foolish to believe that all these things support each other just by a coincidence.

[Rayaan]

Also, remember to include in the list above how many things the government agencies have tried to hide and/or suppress from the 9/11 investigators and the public.

Even the 9/11 Commission now believes that the official version of 9/11 is actually a massive cover-up; it is an elaborate trick.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...ml?sub=new

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/septe...-11-09.php

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/us/bus...panel.html

Plus, it took an astounding 441 days after the 9/11 attacks for Bush to finally aprrove of an independant commission (the 9/11 Commision) which would investigate the facts and causes of the terrorist attacks ... enough time for the government to get rid of all the evidence they don't want us to look at.

Congress approves legislation creating an independent commission - the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - which will later be popularly known as the 9/11 Commission. The Commission’s mandate is to “examine and report on the facts and causes relating to the September 11th terrorist attacks” and “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.js...ushopposes


And the reason for this cover up goes right to the White house

[Rayaan]

Nice try. Of course people conspire, but that's not what 'conspiracy theories' are about.

Fine, maybe you don't believe in any conpiracy theories. But either way, it is not necessarily false nor illogical to think that something is a conspiracy if you at least have some reasons or information that support your theory. It's not as if "conspiracy theories" are always wrong. You have to look at each of them separately, gather as many facts as you can, and then connect the dots. In the case of 9/11, I think that the conspiracy theory is well-supported by many things that we know already. I have looked at the arguments against it as well, but much of the arguments are unreasonable in my opinion, so the conspiracy theory seems more likeley to be true.

No, you have not shown the contrary or supported everything. You have attempted to do so, but you have failed to present a convincing case.

And that is just your own judgement, of course.

Yes, your being a theist does - you are delusion prone.

Whether I am prone to delusion or not, again, your initial contention was that theists are more prone to believing in the 9/11 conspiracy, but you still haven't shown me anything that verifies nor even supports that notion.


Do you think that these 9/11 truthers being "delusion prone" indicate whether they are theists or not?

[Rayaan]

Rayaan. Seriously. You're making yourself look like a blithering, foaming-at-the-mouth idiot. I have held you in intellectual esteem, but this is starting to seriously corrode it.

Mull over that one a little more.





A quote in an article by Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler (on WTC 7):

The overall building mass fell uniformly and with almost perfect symmetry through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – 40,000 tons of structural steel. This requires a precisely timed patterned removal of critical columns – which office fires, a gradual organic process, is not capable of. Only a carefully engineered implosion could cause this 47-story building to collapse in on itself – and land mostly within its own footprint. After all, demolition companies are paid large sums to accomplish this feat, and only a few can do it with tall buildings.

Also, the destruction was complete. The building had been built especially strong so that alternate floors could be removed in case a tenant needed an extra tall space. Yet its forty-seven stories were reduced, in less than seven seconds, to about four stories of debris – like a house of cards – with the virtually complete dismemberment of the steel skeleton, including both braced and welded moment-resisting (bend-resistant) frames.

[paulpablo]

I'm not totally opposed to the idea that the government could have plotted 9 11 but there's a few things that seem strange to me.

If they did then what happened to the passengers on the planes, why is there phone calls from people on the planes to their loved ones?

If you think about the planes and the towers how many people would be involved in this?

The claim that muslims wouldn't do this is completely beyond ridiculous, a lot of muslims don't even see 9 11 as a bad thing and didn't osama bin laden claim responsibility for the attack already?

These points may have already been covered but I haven't seen them yet and these are things that stop me believing it was anything other than a terrorist attack.

[Chas]

Nice try. Of course people conspire, but that's not what 'conspiracy theories' are about.

Fine, maybe you don't believe in any conpiracy theories. But either way, it is not necessarily false nor illogical to think that something is a conspiracy if you at least have some reasons or information that support your theory. It's not as if "conspiracy theories" are always wrong. You have to look at each of them separately, gather as many facts as you can, and then connect the dots. In the case of 9/11, I think that the conspiracy theory is well-supported by many things that we know already. I have looked at the arguments against it as well, but much of the arguments are unreasonable in my opinion, so the conspiracy theory seems more likeley to be true.

No, you have not shown the contrary or supported everything. You have attempted to do so, but you have failed to present a convincing case.

And that is just your own judgement, of course.

Yes, of course it is. It is based on the quality of evidence.

Yes, your being a theist does - you are delusion prone.

Whether I am prone to delusion or not, again, your initial contention was that theists are more prone to believing in the 9/11 conspiracy, but you still haven't shown me anything that verifies nor even supports that notion.


Do you think that these 9/11 truthers being "delusion prone" indicate whether they are theists or not?

That is a gross misuse of logic. A implies B does not imply the B implies A.
You are a theist. That is delusion. Therefore you are delusion-prone.

And your delusion is the Muslim delusion, so you are motivated to exonerate those who are blamed for this.

[Rayaan]

You are a theist. That is delusion. Therefore you are delusion-prone.

Oh right ... as if atheists are never delusion-prone ...

And your delusion is the Muslim delusion, so you are motivated to exonerate those who are blamed for this.

Then that implies that the majority of the world who do not have the "Muslim delusion" would not be motivated to do so, unlike myself and other Muslims.

But, unfortunately for you, that doesn't match with the actual data.

On average, 46 percent said that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four said they do not know.

"Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there was no international consensus about who was behind them," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...bt/535.php