(May 2, 2012 at 9:00 am)Phil Wrote: in the Moussouai trial. The exhibits are at this link http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecase.../exhibits/

As far as the pentagon debris, look at the picture of the punch out hole in the C ring and you will see plenty of debris. Inside the pentagon there was also debris like the landing gear and seats from the plane with passengers. At the world trade center, there was debris in the streets and on top of world trade center 5. There was even debris of the plane you claim vaporized at Shanksville.

---

To be honest, I would be afraid to set foot into a building of yours after reading your posts. here.

Or let's make it simpler ....

Aluminum planes, aluminum facade, rusty steel beams (yes, there are plenty of photographs if you look) and as an added bonus - water from the broken main. What does that lead to?

see, this is the thing ... you the link to the moussaoui trial evidence, that is some input that i can go look into. pictures that show debris don't interest me as much as papers that explain what the pictures are depicting. i'm not a closed case on this, but what you say that is constructive input into the convo is often hazed by the personal shit you also throw into it. if we plan to go back and forth just insulting each, i'll probably pass (i know that's not fun on a forum, lol) because i'm a face to face guy (as depicted by my avatar which isn't hiding who i am), this keyboard tough guy and all knowingness imho is compensating for lack of something very basic. so ... yeah.

I used to be into all these conspiracy theories myself for quite a while. When I first came onto these forums I posted threads about ancient aliens.

No doubt they got shot down within a few posts.

The thing I realised pretty quickly is how stupid I was to believe in them. But the thing is, is you make up evidence and only look at the facts you want to, in order for it to conform with the conspiracy theory you want to believe in.

The people who spread these theories are incredibly good at making them sound convincing, and by presenting 'reasonable' arguments. But what they tend to do is simply ask questions and then propose their version of events. You get caught up in listening to them and you suddenly think there is something in the theory.


Truth is, if ANYONE really takes the time to examine shit like this, they will debunk it.

Like I said, I came here with the same conspiracy theorist noggin. When you realise that these theories should be approached in just the same way as the way we dismiss creationism for much the same reasons, that's when you realise why they are not often given any credibility.

UNTIL evidence to PROVE conspiracies is presented, they are nothing more than conspiracies, and should be treated as such.

(May 2, 2012 at 11:35 am)jackman Wrote: see, this is the thing ... you the link to the moussaoui trial evidence, that is some input that i can go look into. pictures that show debris don't interest me as much as papers that explain what the pictures are depicting. i'm not a closed case on this, but what you say that is constructive input into the convo is often hazed by the personal shit you also throw into it. if we plan to go back and forth just insulting each, i'll probably pass (i know that's not fun on a forum, lol) because i'm a face to face guy (as depicted by my avatar which isn't hiding who i am), this keyboard tough guy and all knowingness imho is compensating for lack of something very basic. so ... yeah.

The thing is before making such dumb statements about 9/11 you should have looked this stuff up first unless you want to be looked at as a crazy conspiracy theorist. In case you couldn't figure it out, my comment about your buildings is based on your misunderstanding about the towers (and the pentagon) and your snap decision that all the planes vaporized. Taken together, that shows a lack of critical thinking and an unfamiliarity with basic engineering skills (as far as building).

phil, it wasn't MY theory that they vaporized. that was tounge-in-cheek explanation to why some of the neighbors and first-responders who went to that site that day, said they found not a shred of evidence that anything was there - no plane, no people, no body parts, no sound, it was like a funeral. not until weeks later did parts show up, hundreds of feet from the hole in the ground.

napoleon, i hear you. truthfully, i don't think what i think is conspiracy theories. there's none of them that i know of yet, that i'm buying lock stock n barrell. just keeping open to the possibilities. granted, i do tend to look at the holes in stories and perhaps over-expose them in my head when needn't be. that's a personality trait of mine that isn't one of my most endearing ones. i've been dealt a bad hand (as a lot of people have) and worked hard to make it a good one - but i'd be lying if i said that hasn't made me think twice about a lot of stuff.

i feel like i learn a ton more stuff when i speak with people on a side that is sort of playing devil's advocate (for lack of a better word). two of the conspiracies that interest me to no end are 9/11 and illuminati. no matter how unfounded people think they are, i'm reading a book on freemasonry by giles morgan right now.

(May 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm)jackman Wrote: granted, i do tend to look at the holes in stories and perhaps over-expose them in my head when needn't be. that's a personality trait of mine that isn't one of my most endearing ones. i've been dealt a bad hand (as a lot of people have) and worked hard to make it a good one - but i'd be lying if i said that hasn't made me think twice about a lot of stuff.

i feel like i learn a ton more stuff when i speak with people on a side that is sort of playing devil's advocate (for lack of a better word). two of the conspiracies that interest me to no end are 9/11 and illuminati. no matter how unfounded people think they are, i'm reading a book on freemasonry by giles morgan right now.

But the question I would ask is do you also look for the same holes in the conspiracy theories you believe are exposing holes?

Because that is something I never used to do. Hence why I was into them so much.

I believed that by getting into them they would expose the truth, but in reality they were doing more to condition my mind against critical thinking. Even though I thought I was thinking critically.

(May 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm)jackman Wrote: phil, it wasn't MY theory that they vaporized. that was tounge-in-cheek explanation to why some of the neighbors and first-responders who went to that site that day, said they found not a shred of evidence that anything was there - no plane, no people, no body parts, no sound, it was like a funeral. not until weeks later did parts show up, hundreds of feet from the hole in the ground.

Let me stop you now before you say one more incredibly stupid thing. The hole at Shanksville had debris found around it within moments of people arriving there. Above ground the debris was mostly small but there were some large (and heavy) pieces found nearby. The reason they traveled (hint: most is in the direction the plane was going) is apparent to anyone that engages their brain. There was debris found in the hole itself that was buried by the impact. Please, stop making idiotic claims. nobody said it was your theory but it was you who made the idiotic comment. So tell me, since you think the plane vaporized (even though over 85% was recovered), what do you think happened?

(May 2, 2012 at 10:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(May 1, 2012 at 5:32 pm)Thor Wrote: I'm sure Neil Armstrong would disagree with you.

Possibly violently.

Buzz Aldrin sure did!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

(May 2, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Napoleon Wrote: But the question I would ask is do you also look for the same holes in the conspiracy theories you believe are exposing holes?

nice. well of course i look at holes even within the holes that i'm standing inside. it seemed to me that people are quick to just deny things without looking, so i asked via this thread. i said earlier that if you have examined stuff and found it to be bullshit, then i can respect that you at least looked.

the initial thread i wrote after reading an article about why more atheists aren't conspiracy theorists. it intrigued me and i knew what was going to come, but i still figured i'd get some nuggets once i sorted thru all the rest.

(May 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm)jackman Wrote: i said earlier that if you have examined stuff and found it to be bullshit, then i can respect that you at least looked.

But the thing is, a lot of conspiracy theorists look for evidence much in the same way religious people think the bible is evidence of god.

Quote:the initial thread i wrote after reading an article about why more atheists aren't conspiracy theorists. it intrigued me and i knew what was going to come, but i still figured i'd get some nuggets once i sorted thru all the rest.

My response to the question of 'why more atheists aren't conspiracy theorists' would be the same as 'why more atheists aren't theists'.

People who argue that since that the damage was concentrated at the top of the building it could not have totally collapsed simply do not understand the physics behind momentum. There is a massive difference between supporting a stationary weight, and supporting a falling weight.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:While the buildings were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.

...and the source: http://web.archive.org/web/2007080923245...-22-07.pdf

Oh, and before someone has a go at me, I used to be a conspiracy theorist. I understand the government doesn't care about me, but there are far better reasons to dislike the government than having to resort to making stuff up.