Conspiracy Theorists vs Debunkers

[Synthetix]

We have two sides here. I'll try to make this about the extreme part of each side. Also, about conspiracy theories and accepted stories.

I don't identify as being either, I find some conspiracy theories to have a valid argument, while others I think are completely absurd, such as the moon landing being faked.

September 11th is an event that I find strange, I do not completely believe the official story. However, there is not one conspiracy theory about it that I've found 100% believable either. Some things I've heard seem plausible, but the one I heard about the planes being holograms made me facepalm.

Moon Landing. There is no way that was faked. I'm sorry, but any/every theory I've heard about it being faked is so easily debunked.

JFK assassination. I've heard interesting theories, none of which I've looked into due to my lack of enthusiasm on the topic.



Why I'm hear is to listen to you give support and criticism to either side. Or, you don't have to pick a side and butt in anyway.

Debunkers: These are the ones who believe the accepted/official story behind an event. Most seem dismissive and try to polarize your view on an event. For example, I told a proclaimed debunker that I didn't believe the accepted 9/11 story, he then brought up how I must believe that Bush and Cheney are reptilian aliens who head illuminati and how I probably masturbate wearing a tin hat. To an extreme debunker, anyone who supplements the idea of a conspiracy is a looney nut job who believes every conspiracy theory out there.

Conspiracy Theorists: These people are prone to mistrust the government. Some I've known can seem paranoid. Alex Jones is probably a prime example of an extreme conspiracy theorist. As are most of the people who are firm on thinking that there is a New World Order being set up. Many have a deep suspicion of the Bilderberg group, UN, private banks, and some corporations. Every major event that happened must be a conspiracy in their eyes. I've noticed that they find a conspiracy that sounds cool to them, then tirelessly search for anything that remotely resembles evidence to support it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

While I'm sure official stories likely have imprecice specific details, especially where based on witness testimony, I can't seriously doubt them because they're generally good explainations with no serious counter-evidence. I know for a fact people get details wrong, or bend them or leave something out so they don't get in trouble for sonething, but I have no reason to suspect the core concepts of it.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Moon Landing. There is no way that was faked. I'm sorry, but any/every theory I've heard about it being faked is so easily debunked.

I have an aquaintance who used to complain that this was a hoax due to the shadows on the moon. He went in a sulk when I eventually pointed out that those 'pictures' are fakes, because there were no high resolution coloured cameras on the moon or on earth in the 60s, at least not portable, of course.

 

[duke of new york]

I have an aquaintance who used to complain that this was a hoax due to the shadows on the moon. He went in a sulk when I eventually pointed out that those 'pictures' are fakes, because there were no high resolution coloured cameras on the moon or on earth in the 60s, at least not portable, of course.

Ha. Meta-conspiracy.

 

[Nezaros]

Moon Landing. There is no way that was faked. I'm sorry, but any/every theory I've heard about it being faked is so easily debunked.

 

[snafupants]

While I'm sure official stories likely have imprecice specific details, especially where based on witness testimony, I can't seriously doubt them because they're generally good explainations with no serious counter-evidence. I know for a fact people get details wrong, or bend them or leave something out so they don't get in trouble for sonething, but I have no reason to suspect the core concepts of it.

I'm honestly curious, SpaceYeti, how do you explain Lucky Larry Silverstein?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#Insurance_dispute

 

[Proletar]

Maybe the terrorist-organisations had tons of information and knowledge that the pentagon&co never gave them credit for. Maybe they are not just some men living in caves.

That being said, the circumstances of 9/11 are bizarre. The air-force couldn't separate between the real attacks and their simulation of a terrorist-hijacking that they just happened to be having at that moment? The owner of the buildings just happened to have sold them some weeks before, and his entire family just happened to not be at work on that one day? The buildings just happened to fall straight down, both of them? Another building that wasn't even attacked also just fell down on itself? There was no picture of any air-plane flying into the Pentagon, and they just found some engine-parts afterwards?

I'm not saying inside job necessarily. Just that there probably is some game being played behind the scenes that we don't know about.

 

[snafupants]

I wouldn't mind administering a spontaneous polygraph test to Larry Silverstein.

The lease date, insurance policy and Larry's absence from work that day alone are suspicious. Add in the "pull it" comment and the way in which building seven fell. Again, I would like to test Larry.

Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001.

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[14] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

Silverstein has said on interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted on him to attend a medical appointment with his dermatologist.

All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on September 11, 2001. After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.

Silverstein stated in a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds', "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court.

It's just hard for me to swallow. Perhaps the "luckiest" person to have ever lived.

@SpaceYeti

Can you explain any of this stuff?

 

[Synthetix]

Maybe the terrorist-organisations had tons of information and knowledge that the pentagon&co never gave them credit for. Maybe they are not just some men living in caves.

That being said, the circumstances of 9/11 are bizarre. The air-force couldn't separate between the real attacks and their simulation of a terrorist-hijacking that they just happened to be having at that moment? The owner of the buildings just happened to have sold them some weeks before, and his entire family just happened to not be at work on that one day? The buildings just happened to fall straight down, both of them? Another building that wasn't even attacked also just fell down on itself? There was no picture of any air-plane flying into the Pentagon, and they just found some engine-parts afterwards?

I'm not saying inside job necessarily. Just that there probably is some game being played behind the scenes that we don't know about.

I love telling people about how there is no photo/video evidence of a plane in the act of hitting the Pentagon. I get confident 9/11 Debunkers to stumble with that one, even trying to find video/photo evidence.



I can be pretty sure what didn't happen, but there are so many speculations about what did happen.


Some theories I've heard:

-Jewish/Israeli plot, Mossad aided. Some people fancy this one because Silverstein is Jewish and because of the dancing Israelis on the parking structure that were spotted.

-CIA/Bush admin. knew about the attacks but did nothing, seeing an opportunity for invasion.

-Bush admin./Neo-con elite planned the whole thing, using it as an excuse for invasion and tighter security, as well as an excuse for beefing up American military presence/dominance around the region.

-Fucking aliens.

And the list goes on. Each has their valid as well as absurd points, maybe the aliens one doesn't have as many valid points.





A big thing I hear from the anti-conspiracy theory people is that a conspiracy that large would need many people involved, and thus the secret could not be contained. However, the vast majority of the population wouldn't believe a defector of the supposed conspiracy group, as the general public tends to accept anything official and authoritative as fact. So the whistle blower will look like a nut and thrown in with the tin hat crowd.

 

[snafupants]

It's almost too ridiculous to process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

October of 2001 for the PATRIOT Act...seems awfully quick.

The act, as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, significantly reduced restrictions in law enforcement agencies' gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATRIOT_ACT

 

[Meer]

So the whistle blower will look like a nut and thrown in with the tin hat crowd.

Hmm, unless they had real evidence, instead of flailing conjecture.

 

[snafupants]

Hmm, unless they had real evidence, instead of flailing conjecture.

@Meer

Are you volunteering to answer the Silverstein riddle?

 

[Meer]

Yes, the ghost of Carl Jung has revealed to me the cause and reason of every coincidence.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, the ghost of Carl Jung has revealed to me the cause and reason of every coincidence.

It's a series of big fucking coincidences then! Millions to one. Do you really believe this is a coincidence? Maybe, hey, you could be right.

Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001.

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[14] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

Silverstein has said on interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted on him to attend a medical appointment with his dermatologist.

All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on September 11, 2001. After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.

Silverstein stated in a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds', "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court.

Based on that data, Larry probably knew in advance. It's a workout to convince yourself otherwise.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

It's a series of big fucking coincidences then! Millions to one. Do you really believe this is a coincidence? Maybe, hey, you could be right.



Based on that data, Larry probably knew in advance. It's a workout to convince yourself otherwise.

So it was one giant case of insurance fraud?

 

[snafupants]

So it was one giant case of insurance fraud?

@Inappropriate Behavior
@Meer
@SpaceYeti


That's how it looks on the surface, yeah? I mean, July 2001 after three decades...and a big, fat insurance policy to boot. The dude doesn't show up at work and says pull it, which appears to cause an inexplicable controlled demolition. Building seven, in fact, sustained relatively minor fires and no plane collision. I guess the sprinklers weren't working that day.

 

[Teohrn]

Where does the al-Qaeda fit in all of this? Did Silverstein contract Mohammad Atta and co. to take suicide just so he could get the insurance money? The shmuck fooled not only the insurance companies and the whole of America, he fooled those silly Ayrabs too!

Luck and mere coincidence is quite normal. People interpret it as they want to though.

As for "pull it" and WTC7. Firstly, why does he bother going on national television as to explain his insurance fraud? Did he think that it's better to affront it, because if he does people will think like me and say "he wouldn't be that stupid?!". In the context of the quote, it seems more like 'it's beyond redemption, stop it (firefighting)'. Secondly, WTC7 was hit by debris, etc., and caught fires, resulting finally in its collapse. Basically, it all seems like twisting and changing the specifics to fit the perspectives of the conspiracy theorists.

I'm going to go with Occam's razor on this.

 

[snafupants]

I'm going to go with Occam's razor on this.

@Teohrn

So does Occam's razor dictate that disparate fires on a few floors could take down a 40+ story steel building, and make it look like a controlled demolition? What's more plausible - the foregoing scenario or controlled demolition? Look at some clips. It's truly an unprecedented event. In other words, to suggest that the simplest explanation is debris causing a fire on a few floors of building seven, which caused an enervation of structural integration and a controlled demolition-like outcome, is ludicrous. What about the insurance policy and lease timing? Why has the media been so reluctant to show building seven falling? A controlled demolition scenario makes far fewer assumptions. Seriously, y'all must be asleep.

If you just looked at the data to determine what happened, there's no way the 9/11 Commission Report is the best explanation. I'm sure people did, in fact, die on September eleventh. It's unclear how and why building seven fell as it did. I also find it mildly implausible that basically novice pilots aimed a plane with such beautiful precision into buildings one and two. There's also the issue of the Pentagon's idiosyncratic explosion and lack of solid (yet wildly belated) footage. The claim that the terrorists' passports somehow survived the crash also strikes me as iffy at best. Many of these moving parts (passports surviving, etc.) are possible but they are neither plausible nor do they constitute the interpretation making the fewest assumptions. The odds of Silverstein's story being literally true, put another way, are millions to one. /smackdown

 

[snafupants]

Spoiler

@Teohrn- I can't hear you anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

[snafupants]

Can anyone explain building seven?

The 9/11 Commission Report didn't quite do it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's just hard for me to swallow. Perhaps the "luckiest" person to have ever lived.

@SpaceYeti

Can you explain any of this stuff?

I fail to see what needs explaining. The guy tried to get a bunch of insurance money. So what? He also happened to be at the doctors instead of at the WTC. I've been at the doctor's when stuff happened at work, it just wasn't work blowing up that happened. Statistically unlikely? Sure. That doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unlikely stuff happens all the time. There's nothing ubelievable, or even especially remarkable, about his story.

 

[snafupants]

Statistically unlikely? Sure. That doesn't mean it was premeditated.

It strongly suggests premeditation, given the odds.

You're going to love this: http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

There's nothing ubelievable, or even especially remarkable, about his story.

Thousands of engineers disagree but all right. SpaceYeti, in plain english, explain to me why building seven fell, and why it fell like a controlled demolition.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's almost too ridiculous to process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22

October of 2001 for the PATRIOT Act...seems awfully quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATRIOT_ACT

I've personally said things like "unless my car explodes" and "maybe if a satelite falls from the sky and crushes my house". They were right about that exception to their expectations, were they not? The only difference is that my unlikely things never happened. Or, at least, not to nearly the degree.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@Inappropriate Behavior
@Meer
@SpaceYeti


That's how it looks on the surface, yeah? I mean, July 2001 after three decades...and a big, fat insurance policy to boot. The dude doesn't show up at work and says pull it, which appears to cause an inexplicable controlled demolition. Building seven, in fact, sustained relatively minor fires and no plane collision. I guess the sprinklers weren't working that day.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like to present my evidence; 1) I,personaly, do not believe the official story and 2) What happened was unlikely."

 

[snafupants]

I've personally said things like "unless my car explodes" and "maybe if a satelite falls from the sky and crushes my house". They were right about that exception to their expectations, were they not? The only difference is that my unlikely things never happened. Or, at least, not to nearly the degree.

@SpaceYeti

Aren't you in the military, SpaceYeti? Aren't you troubled by the lack of specificity concerning the fall of building seven? You seem like a fairly rational person.

 

[snafupants]

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like to present my evidence; 1) I,personaly, do not believe the official story and 2) What happened was unlikely."

Pretty much. And everything else I posted about the quirks of building seven.

You're undercutting but you're nowhere near as smart as me, buddy.

I'm still waiting on you to fully explain building seven. If you can't, say so.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It strongly suggests premeditation, given the odds.

You're going to love this: http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html



Thousands of engineers disagree but all right. SpaceYeti, in plain english, explain to me why building seven fell, and why it fell like a controlled demolition.

It took remarkable structural and fire damage, and didn't fall like a controlled demolition so much as a building which the supports for each floor failed.

Can you explain how nobody witnessed the people cutting holes in the walls in order to place the charges. Where is the company who did it? Where's the paper trail leading to the purchase or use of the explosives?

Could you be correct? Sure. I have no reason to suggest you're actually correct, though.

 

[snafupants]

It took remarkable structural and fire damage, and didn't fall like a controlled demolition so much as a building which the supports for each floor failed.

Can you explain how nobody witnessed the people cutting holes in the walls in order to place the charges. Where is the company who did it? Where's the paper trail leading to the purchase or use of the explosives?

Could you be correct? Sure. I have no reason to suggest you're actually correct, though.

That's your explanation?

You show an astounding ability to disregard evidence.

Did you even see the building fall?

Edit: Well, folks, that appears to be all SpaceYeti has to offer.

Tune in next week for more blind gainsaying.

 

[QuickTwist]

Good read even though I never checked out any of the links. I think it sucks that it happened because people died but we will never know for sure what happened it seems.

Anyone remember the "Lets roll" guy? They even had a book about that story - Non-Fiction.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@SpaceYeti

Aren't you in the military, SpaceYeti? Aren't you troubled by the lack of specificity concerning the fall of building seven? You seem like a fairly rational person.

Being in the military has only made me witness the horrendously inefficient beaurocracy of it all, and why I know a stock of explosives being transported and used would be recorded and leave a paper trail worth several large trees, not counting electronic forms. If the military was involved in any way, it would be made obvious with even a cursory investigation.

 

[snafupants]

If the military was involved in any way, it would be made obvious with even a cursory investigation.

I wasn't implying that - I was implying your position makes you less than objective.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's your explanation?

You show an astounding ability to disregard evidence.

Did you even see the building fall?

Edit: Well, folks, that appears to be all SpaceYeti has to offer.

Tune in next week for more blind gainsaying.

I don't need to explain it. It's been explained. You choose to ignore that explaination because you apparently don't understand it. I explained it in plain English, like you asked. Okay, you reject it, I don't. That's pretty much as far as we'll get until you produce evidence counter to what I know.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I wasn't implying that - I was implying your position makes you less than objective.

How? Anyone and everyone who works for the government is biased toward supporting the government? I do this job for the pay. It's that simple. No, soldiers are crazy and antiauthoritarian just like any other job has, we're just more physically fit and more disciplined (though the discipline may not be internal).

 

[snafupants]

I don't need to explain it. It's been explained. You choose to ignore that explaination because you apparently don't understand it. I explained it in plain English, like you asked. Okay, you reject it, I don't.

You kinda did by asserting I could be right earlier.

That's pretty much as far as we'll get until you produce evidence counter to what I know.

I already have produced such evidence. Others have read and appreciated it.

The problem is that you don't want to know about it.

How? Anyone and everyone who works for the government is biased toward supporting the government? I do this job for the pay. It's that simple.

Serve your country...if it pays well?

 

[SpaceYeti]

You kinda did by asserting I could be right earlier.

I could invent explainations in my imagination all night long, but what actually happened can only be concluded from evidence, not fancy imaginings.

I already have produced such evidence. Others have read and appreciated it.

Good for you and them. I don't find your evidence as or more convinsing than the official reports.

The problem is that you don't want to know about it.

The problem is that the evidence isn't convincing.

Serve your country...if it pays well?

I serve my country because I hit rock bottom and I could either live in poverty and have a place to sleep by being thrown in the drunk tank each night, or I could enlist and support my children like a good father. The choice was clear.

 

[snafupants]

I could invent explainations in my imagination all night long, but what actually happened can only be concluded from evidence, not fancy imaginings.

On the contrary, the evidence I have presented conforms to raw data, not ex post facto revisionist, biased, belated, and highly selective reporting (e.g., 9/11 Commission Report).

I'm asking you to watch a clip. How is that a fancy imagining?

It's convenient when you cherry pick data as well. Oh, that's a problem - don't deal with it.

In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time."

Is that the kind of official report you're talking about?

Good for you and them. I don't find your evidence as or more convinsing than the official reports.

This is how you spell it - convincing. Anyway, the 9/11 Commission Report really didn't go into building seven. I wonder why?

@SpaceYeti - Just show me a study that makes a better case. I haven't seen anything thus far to indicate building seven wasn't a controlled demolition.

And I'm not even touching the Silverstein stuff right now.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You've been linked to NIST'S reports before. They were peer reviewed, with no serious challenge. It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. I simply don't have the patience for it, and I'm on a 24 hour shift, and I'm tired. Write a refutation of NIST's papers and submit them to peer review if you think you have something convincing.

 

[Synthetix]

You've been linked to NIST'S reports before. They were peer reviewed, with no serious challenge. It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. I simply don't have the patience for it, and I'm on a 24 hour shift, and I'm tired. Write a refutation of NIST's papers and submit them to peer review if you think you have something convincing.

To my knowledge, there are many reasonable refutations of the NIST report. Haven't you extensively read all that the opposition has presented?

 

[Synthetix]

I fail to see what needs explaining. The guy tried to get a bunch of insurance money. So what? He also happened to be at the doctors instead of at the WTC. I've been at the doctor's when stuff happened at work, it just wasn't work blowing up that happened. Statistically unlikely? Sure. That doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unlikely stuff happens all the time. There's nothing ubelievable, or even especially remarkable, about his story.

You seem to be dodging the whole, "Explain building seven" question. You go right to saying that "unlikely stuff happens all the time". A 47 floor building that wasn't hit happened to come down at free fall speed, and your explanation is that unlikely stuff happens all the time?

 

[SpaceYeti]

To my knowledge, there are many reasonable refutations of the NIST report. Haven't you extensively read all that the opposition has presented?

Extensively? Not in a few years. Are the refutations of the NIST reports in peer reviewed journals? If not, why not? Could you please list the single best one?

You seem to be dodging the whole, "Explain building seven" question. You go right to saying that "unlikely stuff happens all the time". A 47 floor building that wasn't hit happened to come down at free fall speed, and your explanation is that unlikely stuff happens all the time?

It wasn't hit directly by a plane. How that's the same thing as "wasn't hit", even though there was a gash in the Southwest side which was over twenty stories high, is beyond me. Further, I didn't explain building seven coming down as being an unlikely coincidence, I explained Silverstein being at a doctor's appointment instead of in the towers, even though he usually was there at that time each day, as simple coincidence. People do go to the doctor's. He's no exception.

 

[Kuu]

It basically novice pilots aimed a plane with such beautiful precision into buildings one and two. There's also the issue of the Pentagon's idiosyncratic explosion and lack of solid (yet wildly belated) footage. The claim that the terrorists' passports somehow survived the crash also strikes me as iffy at best. Many of these moving parts (passports surviving, etc.) are possible but they are neither plausible nor do they constitute the interpretation making the fewest assumptions. The odds of Silverstein's story being literally true, put another way, are millions to one. /smackdown

The official explanation is as much of a conspiracy theory. People choose to believe it because its been repeated ad-nauseum by "respectable authorities".

Al Qaeda was funded by the US, Bin Laden was a CIA asset. These are facts conveniently forgotten.

The world is basically sleepwalking into the ramp up to a Third World War and people still believe/fear the preposterous "terrorist" boogeyman... Seriously...

 

[Synthetix]

Extensively? Not in a few years. Are the refutations of the NIST reports in peer reviewed journals? If not, why not? Could you please list the single best one?

How would you rate the absolute best one?

Here's a link I found, I'm not calling it the single best.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

And..

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

It wasn't hit directly by a plane. How that's the same thing as "wasn't hit", even though there was a gash in the Southwest side which was over twenty stories high, is beyond me. Further, I didn't explain building seven coming down as being an unlikely coincidence, I explained Silverstein being at a doctor's appointment instead of in the towers, even though he usually was there at that time each day, as simple coincidence. People do go to the doctor's. He's no exception.

I was implying that it wasn't hit by a plane, so I didn't say plane exactly, my mistake, but the damage from falling debris wouldn't cause as much damage as a plane hitting dead on. I'm not the one addressing the issue of him visiting the doctors, I'm asking for an in depth explanation of the building seven collapse.

 

[Teohrn]

@Teohrn

So does Occam's razor dictate that disparate fires on a few floors could take down a 40+ story steel building, and make it look like a controlled demolition? What's more plausible - the foregoing scenario or controlled demolition? Look at some clips. It's truly an unprecedented event. In other words, to suggest that the simplest explanation is debris causing a fire on a few floors of building seven, which caused an enervation of structural integration and a controlled demolition-like outcome, is ludicrous. What about the insurance policy and lease timing? Why has the media been so reluctant to show building seven falling? A controlled demolition scenario makes far fewer assumptions. Seriously, y'all must be asleep.

There are a lot more assumptions you yourself base your conclusion on. What you forget is that claiming that there was a controlled demolition scenario is not simply one single assumption. It's an assumption that has to support itself on a chain of assumptions, most of them counter-intuitive. As an example; would the people behind this really be as stupid as to just demolish WTC building 7 with no seeming cause behind it? The flames didn't melt the steel but weakened it. Basically, the weaknening of the structures holding the floors up resulted in the collapse of WTC 7. You don't need to take my word for it, as mentioned earlier, there's the NIST investigation report.

By the way, since this is a conspiracy, just why is it that so many, including the state, are supporting Silverstein to fraud insurance companies out of money? That includes damaging the Pentagon. All of this, including terrorists crashing planes into the WTC buildings, just so that Silverstein could get his insurance money. Lucky coincidence sounds more likely. And if you were in the same situation, would you have settled with more or less money? I'm pretty sure you would have chosen the former - most would. It's hardly anything to go by.

I would readily take any lecture from you on how a controlled demolition looks like (as opposed to an uncontrolled collapse) since you apparently have extensive knowledge on how buildings are supposed to fall, more importantly how it would look like, in what circumstances.

If you just looked at the data to determine what happened, there's no way the 9/11 Commission Report is the best explanation. I'm sure people did, in fact, die on September eleventh. It's unclear how and why building seven fell as it did. I also find it mildly implausible that basically novice pilots aimed a plane with such beautiful precision into buildings one and two. There's also the issue of the Pentagon's idiosyncratic explosion and lack of solid (yet wildly belated) footage. The claim that the terrorists' passports somehow survived the crash also strikes me as iffy at best. Many of these moving parts (passports surviving, etc.) are possible but they are neither plausible nor do they constitute the interpretation making the fewest assumptions. The odds of Silverstein's story being literally true, put another way, are millions to one. /smackdown

This is fallacious. The 9/11 Comission Report isn't the only thing to go by. (See above.) The fallacy is in your misrepresentation. For your ideas to hold ground, this would all have to sound unlikely, hence how you word it as "beautiful precision" as if something extraordinary. The evidence shows that they did manage to hijack the airplanes. The very planes they hijacked crashed into the WTCTTs. For you to refute it, you would have to prove that it didn't happen. Good luck with that.

Spoiler

@Teohrn- I can't hear you anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

You pulled the trigger a little too prematurely.

That has little to do with this. Sure, I don't doubt it, but it's of little meaning, it just goes to show that the US could be willing to do this. Considering the fact that the Kennedy administration rejected it, don't you think other administrations would have too? It's just not anything to go by, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I guess I could agree with you if you had said that people high up certainly took advantage of this. There were many who benefited from it, but that doesn't mean they made it happen. The concept of opportunism and randomness would be inexistant if everything was left to puppeteering.

 

[SpaceYeti]

How would you rate the absolute best one?

Here's a link I found, I'm not calling it the single best.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

That link is full of several important factual errors.
1) The building did not come down due exclusively to fires, it also took significant structural damage from the debree of the collapse of the twin towers.
2) The fires were, indeed, hot enough to melt steel, as steel is, itself, combustible. Once it gets hot enough, it starts burning faster. That's what oxidizing is, basically. Rust. Slow burning. There are technical difficulties. Rust is actually the byproduct of the oxidization, but you get the point. Once steel gets hot and it's burning, it gets pretty dang hotter. Even if the steel in building 7 did not burn, which it may not have (been a while for me), it was still certainly hot enough to bend and weaken, and the one which was burned could have come from one of the twin towers. After all, material heavy enough for those giant gashes must have made it over to that building, or else what else would have made them?
3) (Not a false statement, but a curious one) They ndo not identify the former NIST employee. We do not know what he did, why he's no longer an employee, nothing.

This article is nothing more than conspiracy rhetoric. Everything claimed to be a hole in the explanation provided by NIST is actually explained by NIST, and not contradicted by any peers through the peer reviewed nature of the material. Just read the damned report.

And..

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

More conspiracy rhetoric. Read the report. This stuff is certainly convincing to people who don't actually know what NIST said. And, hell, I haven't read it ion forever, so I simply don't remember all of what it said, so just read it yourself.

I was implying that it wasn't hit by a plane, so I didn't say plane exactly, my mistake, but the damage from falling debris wouldn't cause as much damage as a plane hitting dead on. I'm not the one addressing the issue of him visiting the doctors, I'm asking for an in depth explanation of the building seven collapse.

Who cares if it caused as much damage as a plane hitting head on? It didn't need to do that much damage.

Here's my own link; http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Moreover, I'd like to ask where the explosives came from, why there's no paper trail for it, why there's no store of explosives saying "Hey, where'd these several tons of explosives go?", who got brought in to plant the explosives, and why nobody saw any of the explosives being planted. The demolition of a building isn't exactly a small operation.

 

[Synthetix]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments.

But what really gives it away is the rhetoric and tone of the narrative, which is presented in a pseudo-technical pseudo-academic way, but which is transparently intermingled with outright neoconservative propaganda which has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Okay, fine, whatever. I'm done with this thread. I remember why I left the last one, now.

But before I go, one question; Is it impossible that it tries to debunk this "new evidence" because, in fact, it's all bullox?

 

[Duxwing]

debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments.

But what really gives it away is the rhetoric and tone of the narrative, which is presented in a pseudo-technical pseudo-academic way, but which is transparently intermingled with outright neoconservative propaganda which has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

What? Why wouldn't one examine every possible explanation? What they showed there is not dishonesty, but rigor and thoroughness: they looked at every single presented explanation of 9/11 and either confirmed or debunked it. Moreover, implicit in your statement is the assumption that their attempt to debunk these alternative theories was unsuccessful: why can't an alternative explanation be wrong? Let me give you an (admittedly extreme) example:

Conspiracy Theorist: I think that George Washington blew the twin towers up to compensate for the fact that his father punished him for cutting down a cherry tree.
Debunker: George Washington was long dead by September 11, 2001, and no evidence suggests that he developed a tall object fixation after being punished.

(and now to point out the absurdity of your other argument)

Conspiracy Theorist: You refuted my entire point, and not just some aspect of it, so you must be an interest in making sure that no-one ever believes me.
Debunker: Of course I don't want anyone to believe your hypothesis, just like I wouldn't want someone to believe that 2+2=5: both of these ideas are wrong! I argue against you as a matter of principle.

Returning to my own voice, you also need to understand that:

--The absence of evidence to suggest statement "X" does not necessarily imply foul play on the part of any party.
--The fact that an explanation originates from the government does not imply that said investigation is necessarily trying to cover anything up. The arguments made by said investigation stand on their own. Arguing otherwise is argumentum ad hominem, since points are separate from their authors.
--The fact that an explanation does not originate from the government does not imply that said investigation is necessarily of any truth value whatsoever. Again, the arguments made by said investigation stand on their own. Arguing otherwise is positive argumentum ad hominem, since points are separate from their authors.
--You've started with the unstated and (for you) intuitive assumption that the US Federal Government is somehow involved in a conspiracy. Although such a claim seems intuitively true to you, the burden of proof rests on you to prove what you assert, just as it rests on me to prove what I assert (and I've asserted nothing but the invalidity of your argument).

I acknowledge that:

--Bush Jr. wanted to fight a war against Saddam after 9/11, but you'd be surprised to know what it was: Saddam's intelligence agency tried to kill Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. said as much when he interrupted the decision-making process on the question of going to war by saying "They tried to kill my dad, we're getting him."
--The government, if it did commit a crime, would want to cover it up. However, the separation of powers makes doing so notoriously difficult: not even Nixon, the brilliant politician and real conspiracy mastermind, could outwit the Justice Department and Senate for long, and the only thing that saved his butt from going to jail was just how much of the new president's (precious-- the Cold War was heating up) time Nixon's trial was taking up.

QED: The act of refuting someone's entire argument implies nothing if not corroborated by further evidence.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

@Teohrn

1) The Bush administration is not the Kennedy administration.

2) September 11th proved a pretext for war and a restriction of civil liberties (e.g., PATRIOT Act).

3) September 11th, if preordained or planned, shares features with Operation Northwoods.

4) Larry Silverstein could have simply possessed foreknowledge and cashed in.

5) I do know something about controlled demolitions

6) Building seven has controlled demolition features.

 

[Reluctantly]

The Pentagon not releasing video footage of the plane or the black boxes from the plane isn't really that surprising. The military is always thinking about security and if they don't have to release anything that might compromise security, they won't, especially not to appease a conspiracy theorist. And there are people that swear they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, but there isn't anyone claiming explosions went off in the Pentagon without a plane crash, so there isn't really an evidence trail to back it up.

As for Silverstein, how did he make money off 9/11? He not only got less than what was expected from the insurance company, but he is also still rebuilding while paying rent in the hundreds of millions and paying more to rebuild than what he got from the insurance. So...how did he cash out in this?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In the end, conspiracy theorists don't legitimately account for situations, and debunkers don't assuage the inner doubts people have, when it comes to most controversial and unexplained events.

Unless there is incontrovertible evidence, or the situation is imperative it's probably best to let people believe what they already believe, and not waste the effort.