atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Abishalom]

Let's be real guys. A plane will not destroy a 110 story building reinforces with steel and concrete (let alone 2). If it wasn't controlled demolition please explain how a well constructed tower topples in place especially when both planes crashed near the top of both towers. I do not consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" but I do believe their is some being covered up about 9/11.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

As a skeptic I tend to look quizzically at all claims.... Not just Jesus shit.
When you start to examine the "evidence" that these people rely on it starts to look like a scam. The only people who benefit from this crap are the ones who wrote them.

Indeed,or made a 'documentary'


To be fair there are a LOT of paranoid Americans. Can't say I blame them.

In any crime... Follow the money.

Broader; cui bono (est): To whom (it is) of advantage.

[libalchris]

Let's be real guys. A plane will not destroy a 110 story building reinforces with steel and concrete (let alone 2). If it wasn't controlled demolition please explain how a well constructed tower topples in place especially when both planes crashed near the top of both towers. I do not consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" but I do believe their is some being covered up about 9/11.

Before I answer, you have to explain the lack of explosive remnants, as well as the lack of noise from explosions (All of which, and more are addressed in the video posted by padraic.

Now, please explain what evidence you have suggesting there's no way an airliner won't knock down a 100 story building wit reinforced steel and concrete? How many times have you seen this happen before? The plains were fully loaded with jet fuel. The planes would cause significant damage on impact, and the burning jet fuel over enough time would weaken the steel extremely. Once enough of the steel is weakened, the force bears down and once it starts falling there is nothing to stop it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Let's be real guys. A plane will not destroy a 110 story building reinforces with steel and concrete

Well actually,TWO planes can,will and did.

Your argument is a based on a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity/lack of imagination",a form of argument from ignorance..


See my post and videos on the previous page.


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination

[Phil]

i just wonder why free thinking atheists hate critical thinking conspiracy people. nothing more nothing less.

Problem is they are not thinking critically otherwise they wouldn't believe in the stupidity they do. Take 9/11 for example. There are a bunch of idiots that claim the towers couldn't have come down as they did unless the terrorists broke the laws of physics. Tell me, since the towers obviously came down were the laws of physics broken? Do you call that critical thinking? Tell me, did you ever see Richard Gage's demonstration of the towers collapse with cardboard boxes? Richard Gage is a member of the AIA. Is he practicing critical thinking? Personally, 9/11 truthers are about as worthless to me as holocaust deniers.

---

, and every plane on all crash sites did as well.

Excuse me? Are you practicing critical thinking or just parroting what you were told? There is plenty of debris from the planes at the wold trade centers and in the pentagon.

[Abishalom]

Let's be real guys. A plane will not destroy a 110 story building reinforces with steel and concrete

Well actually,TWO planes can,will and did.

Your argument is a based on a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity/lack of imagination",a form of argument from ignorance..


See my post and videos on the previous page.


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination

No actually your argument is a logical fallacy (or perhaps a a sign that you lack comprehension). Both buildings were hit by exactly 1 plane. Hence "A plane will not destroy a 110 story building reinforces with steel and concrete". Now carry on with your nonsense.

BTW I noticed how you failed to respond to my simple question. A plane hit a building near the top of the building (not its foundation) yet it crumbles IN PLACE (similar to controlled demolition). Please explain...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Both buildings were hit by exactly 1 plane

Oh,my mistake,make that "one plane can,and did."

Your loopy conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked. Your argument remains an argument from incredulity.


Have a look at the videos below:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppf6tADMooY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb-OFhxvEo8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxV...DFC7448387


OF COURSE I don't expect the above to satisfy you because,going by your many other posts,as well as this thread,you are willfully ignorant fool. I bother because I'm an incurable romantic. On the remote chance that you might engage your cerebral cortex and actually look at some credible evidence. Or,even better,get off your fucking arse and do some actual research for yourself.

Bored now.

[Christi]

The whole building demolition issue need not be proven for there to be conspiracies for 9/11. Why would Bush care whether or not the buildings came down nicely? Obviously, he wouldn't need to care.

No, I had not watched the Mythbusters show about the moon. Darn. Missed the part about the reflectors to...golly darn

Lets just be happy that more planes weren't taken over. Seems like the Taliban could have done whatever they wanted to on that day.

[Minimalist]

Actually, he did need 9/11 as the public would not have gone along with the invasion otherwise. Remember, economy tanking, no one really even cared much about Sadam Hussein. And yeah, where are those "weapons of mass destruction" anyway?

BTW, just look on Youtube for evidence as there is plenty of it. No, I don't want to get all up in it cause then the big bad government is gonna take me away.

Mythbusters? You mean the same guys that shot a hole through someone's house? Yeah, you keep on believing. BTW, they only even worked on 2 of the photos. And, in one of the photos, they manipulated the dust in order to get the shadows to go their way.

So with all of the money that NASA has pissed through, going back to the moon just isn't in the plans? Nope, not buying it.

WTF are you rattling on about? On 9-10-01 the economy was not tanking. The US still had a six trillion dollar surplus and Bush hadn't fucked it all up yet. Try to learn some history before commenting on it.

[Cyberman]

First of all, there is actually a lot of evidence to prove that the moon landing was faked. Just look at so much of the photos and you can see it was staged. Plus, if we were there and technology is so much better now, why haven't we been back?

I'm sitting here hoping that you were joking when you wrote this. There is exactly as much evidence that the Moon landings were faked as there is for creationism, and it's just as credible. Apart from those laser reflectors, consider that the Apollo program returned nearly 400 kg of material in the form of rock and dust samples, all of which has to be accounted for. This resource goes into the whole hoax conspiracy in incredible detail:

http://www.clavius.org/

Check out their forum (and their new one) as well to see how well the Hoax Believers defend their case. Hint: it's painful.

As to why haven't we been back to the Moon: I wrote a whole article on exactly this point over at the Connecticut Valley Atheists (CVA) forum many moons (!) ago. However, since that site went tits-up recently, I'll have to try and recreate it from memory.

We have been back, many times. Since Apollo 11, NASA has sent manned capsules to the Moon a further six times. It is true that America was the first nation to set a man down on the lunar surface, although Russia actually beat the US to the punch ten years year earlier when their Luna-1 probe performed a fly-by in January 1959, beating America's Pioneer 4 by two months. Later that year, Russia's Luna-2 became the first man-made object to reach (ok, crash into) the lunar surface. However, as we all know, Neil Armstrong was indeed the first human to step out onto the Moon's surface; a record which still stands to this day.

In the years since Apollo 17's landing in 1972, there have been seventeen missions to the Moon by five different national space agencies including NASA, with more planned for the immediate future. These missions, though not manned, have run the full gamut from simple fly-bys, orbiters and photo-reconnaisance to landers, rovers and sample return missions. Even the Apollo mission is still going on; those famous laser reflectors are monitored daily as part of the Apollo project.

As you correctly observed, the technology has improved greatly over the past decades. That is precisely why NASA and other spage agencies have chosen to go the robot probe route over manned spaceflight since:

* it's bloody dangerous, as evidenced by Apollo 1's never leaving the launchpad and Apollo 13's almost never making it back;

* it's reletively cheaper. A robot probe can be made as small and as light as the equipment it has to carry for the mission it's designed to carry out, without having to worry about life support and the concomitant fuel increase for all that unnecessary extra mass;

* it's easier to sell to the public at large, as well as to the relevant funding authorities. While Apollo did provide a short-term boost to national morale during a particularly troubled period, eventually in the public eyes it became an expensive way of sending people a quarter of a million miles to play golf - regardless of how much actual science was also achieved and valuable data returned;

* robot probes can gather more data, more quickly and more reliably, as well as in more extreme environments, than a team of even the most brilliant scientists over a long period cooped up in a tin can.

So don't let me hear the words "Moon" and "hoax" in the same sentence again, unless it's to point and laugh. Ok?