[split] 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[theVOID]

Have you been watching Zeitgeist, The Movie?

Fuck no, Zeitgeist is a joke. I've seen the first two and found them entirely unconvincing.

[binny]

I actually directed that question to Pippy. But yes someone recently told me to watch that so I wasted 2 hours of my life doing that. That movie was suppose to tell me the truth. Why do people always want to tell me the truth? It usually ends up being something stupid.

[Pippy]

but Jaques Fresco is kinda a futurist himself...

Didn't you even like the first third about astrological worship being superimposed onto religion? I thought you guys might like anything that made Jesus less likely.

Okay, one fact Void. They didn't find any of the four "black boxes" in the WTC debris, even though I have not been able to find any other literature involving the failure to find the flight data recorder. They found it for TWA800, in the ocean. Now couple that with the supposed witness accounts of people aiding the FBI in the recovery. Is it more likley that those devices were not found, which seems statistically improbable at the least, and that the alleged witnesses are lying, or that they did find them and the FBI are lying?

All I am saying as a truther is that I can prove the existence of lies in the official story, not make theories as to what did happen. I will theorize, if it is constructive, but I would rather try to demonstrate that there are places in the official story that the information doesn't add up.

If you are interested in physics, that it seems strange to me that you of all people would accept the "pancake collapse" theory, as it has no bearing on the reality we all witnessed. I mean that is Newtonian basics.

I have seen Zeitgeist, yes Tammy. It was interesting, but I do not agree that we need to wait for tech to solve all of our problems. But they did a good job of summarizing and questioning the Commissions story. But I don't base my beliefs on it, it's just another video.

Paranoid Schizophrenia?

That's the easy way out...

Mankind has some problems that's for sure, but you only need emotion and greed to explain all of that

I would disagree, I don't think human nature is inherently evil. I think it is simpler but larger than just greed and emotion, that they are symptoms, not the problem itself...

So there, have a tidbit of fact about 9/11, but seriously look into it yourself. I agree that there is a lot of BS out there. Start with the Commission report, but it is a long book. See what the official story is, and then begin the process of skeptical evaluation of evidence.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Eilonnwy]

Zeitgest takes disparate facts and tries to make something out of nothing. Here's a good but brief take down: http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/20...ponse.html

Didn't you even like the first third about astrological worship being superimposed onto religion? I thought you guys might like anything that made Jesus less likely.

We don't need conspiracy theories to make him less likely.

[Pippy]

The fact that many beliefs have the son of god in relation to the solstice? That is a conspiracy theory? I though the religious takeover of astrological worship was a well defined period of history, but hey if that is some conspiracy somewhere...

[theVOID]

but Jaques Fresco is kinda a futurist himself...

Didn't you even like the first third about astrological worship being superimposed onto religion? I thought you guys might like anything that made Jesus less likely.

Only when it's accurate

Okay, one fact Void. They didn't find any of the four "black boxes" in the WTC debris, even though I have not been able to find any other literature involving the failure to find the flight data recorder. They found it for TWA800, in the ocean.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" Popular Mechanics

A little reading also turned up the black box being found in pensylvania but was too damaged to recover meaningful data, but the cockpit recorder was found albeit in bad condition and confirmed the idea that there was a struggle on the plane.

Now couple that with the supposed witness accounts of people aiding the FBI in the recovery. Is it more likley that those devices were not found, which seems statistically improbable at the least, and that the alleged witnesses are lying, or that they did find them and the FBI are lying?

Supposed witness accounts are not good evidence. Next.

All I am saying as a truther is that I can prove the existence of lies in the official story, not make theories as to what did happen. I will theorize, if it is constructive, but I would rather try to demonstrate that there are places in the official story that the information doesn't add up.

Where is this proof? That's what i'm interested in, the proof - not you just claiming you can prove it.

If you are interested in physics, that it seems strange to me that you of all people would accept the "pancake collapse" theory, as it has no bearing on the reality we all witnessed. I mean that is Newtonian basics.

Oh really, do you want to show me your calculations? If you knew any where near as much physics as you claim you will know that comparatively high energy, high mass, high momentum events, especially when dealing with complex structures, can lead to some very non-intuitive outcomes.

I'm going to look up some studies when i have time, but please post your proof for why it would not have "pancaked".

Mankind has some problems that's for sure, but you only need emotion and greed to explain all of that

I would disagree, I don't think human nature is inherently evil. I think it is simpler but larger than just greed and emotion, that they are symptoms, not the problem itself...

I never said mankind was inherently evil, it's not inherently good either, but greed is a reality and it's a very strong motivator for people to lie and manipulate, they may not be evil people but they are motivated by greed and power to never stop expanding, coupling that with the identity of legacy and you get established wealth and generational greed - neither is 'evil' because of that by default, it takes more dire actions to earn that title, but it's not a socially beneficial motivator - that being said, the competitiveness that arises from greed, pride and power is certainly one of the elements of the human condition that makes it exciting.

So there, have a tidbit of fact about 9/11, but seriously look into it yourself. I agree that there is a lot of BS out there. Start with the Commission report, but it is a long book. See what the official story is, and then begin the process of skeptical evaluation of evidence.

You have't provided anything i'd consider 'fact' here, you have just asserted claims and provided no evidence, i don't find that reasoning convincing in the least.

I'll check out the commission report and some peer-reviewed science, if you can provide the names of any real scientists who have evidence against certain events, that is the type of evidence i would be happy to see.

[Pippy]

A little reading also turned up the black box being found in pensylvania but was too damaged to recover meaningful data, but the cockpit recorder was found albeit in bad condition and confirmed the idea that there was a struggle on the plane.

So your little bit of reading counts as proof, but mine is hearsay? You chastise my proof as just owrds on the internet, but all you have is words on the internet. That is where we internalize the debate and decide which piece of hearsay seems more likley than the other. How does the damage of the black box, which is nearly indestructible mean there was a struggle? It was such a fantastic struggle that is damaged the flight data recorder? I would lean towards a crash into the ground as more likely a cause of said damage.

Supposed witness accounts are not good evidence. Next.

I will admit that I didn't quote my sources, but I assure you that you can do the research yourself if you are so inclined. The reason I did not post my sources is because it is hearsay, that you can choose to believe it or not. but what makes my sourced witness "not good evidence" and you witness otherwise?

Where is this proof? That's what i'm interested in, the proof - not you just claiming you can prove it.

But you cannot prove that the official story is valid either. So we are at am impasse, where as free-thinkers we have to figure it out ourselves. It seems less likley that the official story is possible or plausible than some other information and theories. There is not proof, there is nothing I can reach through the screen (and dimension of time) and show you, as there would be nothing for you to do the same for your side of the argument. But if you posit that it is more likley that the boxes were not recovered, than I think that is incorrect.

But you also seemed to show that they indeed were collected, then the question becomes can we hear or see trascripts of them? If they were collected, why were they not entered into public record during the investigation, and remained behind closed doors, same as presidential and vice presidential testimony?

I am saying that they were likely collected, and then we were told that they were not. you come back with a Popular Mechanics article quote saying that they were. So are we disagreeing?

I am terrible a math, but lets do it. how long would it take a free fall object to cover the same distance? How much resistance to gravity do undamaged floors present? In a pancake collapse theory, what is a reasonable time frame of said collapse whereas there is a congruent amount of gravitational resistance from the floors below involved in said collapse? I assume that it is much higher than 9 or 14 seconds, more like 45ish. But feel free to crunch numbers. In a pancake collapse, would we not expect the falling load to meet resistance form the floors and supports below it, and that that would possibly cause the collapsing portion to fall to one side or another? How does a pancake style collapse maintain a downward trajectory for the entirety of the failure? Wouldn't the building literally fall over at some point? Especially taken into account that all supports could not fail simultaneously. Even if most failed, and caused the rest to, it would be impossible with an hour of kerosene and aluminum aeroframe impact for literally every support to fail simultaneously. Would that not also then lead to a lilting, or "falling over" of the structure? This isn't math, but speculative introspection.

I'll check out the commission report and some peer-reviewed science, if you can provide the names of any real scientists who have evidence against certain events, that is the type of evidence i would be happy to see.

Well, you keep trying to find a real scientist, but I would suggest you use your own faculties to figure this one out. At some point we have to think for ourselves, and not outsource our opinions and ideas to perceived experts.

So yeah. Your hearsay trumps mine because you has the balls to copy and paste it.
Thanks for listening, I do enjoy discussions with you, we just don't see eye to eye.
-Pip

[Tiberius]

How does the damage of the black box, which is nearly indestructible mean there was a struggle? It was such a fantastic struggle that is damaged the flight data recorder? I would lean towards a crash into the ground as more likely a cause of said damage.

Oh come on. Stop being facetious. You know full well that he meant that cockpit recorder had recorded the sounds the crew and passengers made as they tried to breach the cockpit door in their last bid effort to retake the plane. This is confirmed by the calls made by the passengers themselves to loved ones and the authorities.

How much resistance to gravity do undamaged floors present? In a pancake collapse theory, what is a reasonable time frame of said collapse whereas there is a congruent amount of gravitational resistance from the floors below involved in said collapse? I assume that it is much higher than 9 or 14 seconds, more like 45ish.

No, it took the 14 or so seconds that the building collapsed in. The weight of the floors above the impact has to be taken into account, and this is why the second building to be hit was the first one to fall. The second building was hit much lower that the first, so there was more weight above the damage, causing more strain as the inner structure deteriorated.

[Meatball]

Why is the direction the towers fell even an issue? If this was a massive government (or any other kind) conspiracy, why would they go through such pains to make the towers fall straight down?

What purpose does that serve? To make amateur physicists paranoid?

[downbeatplumb]

There was a fantastic Horizon episode, (horizon is a BBC science programme) that explained the violent collision and intense heat expanded and fatally weakened the structure to such a point that just prior to the collapse they were like a delicate house of cards.
I'm not saying your government are angels, but people point in the wrong direction and dont expose the real problems.