[split] 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[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.