Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 9/11 conspiracy theories
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Donnie Darko
Does anyone here believe that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11?

I was shocked to find recently that a ton of people actually believe that...
TommyGun
Um. No. The longer we get away from the actual event, the more theories pop-up. They already de-bunked the "no plane" theory that hit the Pentagon.
Head_prosthesis
Well, yeah!

I'll believe anything when I first hear it.

Jaded Prole
As a skeptic by nature who is leary of conspiracy theories I don't know what to believe but, given the evidence, demolition (along with the planes) doesn't seem any less plausible than the official story. Interestingly enough, last spring I placed a posting about it and a link to one of the sites, Scholars for 911 truth, on my blog. The posting and link disappeared. The link has mysteriously has since been changed several times. This is creepy and, if anything makes me think there might be more to it than I would have originally thought. What's worse are the implications . . .
The Standard Deviant
I believe something was hidden, and I know we will never know what really happened.
Pataphysician
QUOTE(Head_prosthesis @ Feb 2 2007, 04:37 PM) *

I'll believe anything when I first hear it.


I believe anything I hear here first.
Pataphysician
...and this would have been devised by the same brain trust that planned the Iraq War and the Katrina Hurricane Response?
sixela
QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 3 2007, 01:39 AM) *

As a skeptic by nature who is leary of conspiracy theories I don't know what to believe but, given the evidence, demolition (along with the planes) doesn't seem any less plausible than the official story.


The first part of the sentence is contradicted by the second.
Jaded Prole
No, conspiracies happen all the time. The invasion of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy, planned long befor September 11. I'm a skeptic in that it would be hard to pull off the coordination for such an attack as the WTC but it is far from impossible and given some of the folks involved and their need for a Reichstag Fire to empower their agenda, it is not impossible nor any more implausible than the official story, especially given that the US has a ready system that, in the case of hijack, scrambles fighter jets within 10 minutes. Our air controlers were aware and tracking the hijacked jets for up to 40 minutes and fighter pilots were kept from persuit. As a skeptic (I am the Jaded Prole) I niether beleive or disbeleive any particular version of the story but I think, given the evidence and the questions, that a truly independent investigation is warranted.
Kirk
Sure, as long as they don't pay for it with tax money, let the theorists figure it out.
The funny thing is, there does not have to be a conspiracy for people to behave in a mutually beneficial mode.
Don't forget, Bush was over there in Afghanistan stirring things up a few months before the attack.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Pataphysician @ Feb 3 2007, 02:01 AM) *

...and this would have been devised by the same brain trust that planned the Iraq War and the Katrina Hurricane Response?


That's my take on it. To assume the government was involved in orchestrating 9/11 is to assume a level of competence far beyond what they have shown. Yes, conspiracies do happen, and have been carried out by our government in the past, but nothing on the scale of 9/11. If our government couldn't pull off the Bay of Pigs invasion and couldn't get away with breaking into the Watergate hotel, I highly doubt they could have coordinated 9/11 with the hijackers while simultaenously rigging 3 NYC buildings to implode.

QUOTE
it is not impossible nor any more implausible than the official story,


That doesn't sound very skeptical, especially when you cite that "Scholars for 9/11 truth" site, which has a clear pro-conspiracy agenda, and relies on discredited sources like Dr. Stephen Jones (who thinks the government brought the buildings down with thermite, which isn't even an explosive).

If you're genuinely skeptical, you'll consider this thorough and well researched article from Popular Mechanics. It shows in elaborate detail that the conspiracy theories are FAR more implausible than the official story:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1

As for the Reichstag fire comparison, don't you think setting a building on fire is a little less complicated than rigging 3 buildings (all taller than the largest buildings ever imploded) with RDX charges unnoticed, then coordinating them to go down with terrorists hijacking planes?
Jaded Prole
I didn't say I bought into it, only that it is worth further investigation. It's almost as mysterious as this though far less entertaining.

Nevertheless, the experience of having the link disappear and change only gives some credence to the possibility of foul play of some sort, at least to me.
jacal01
QUOTE(Pataphysician @ Feb 2 2007, 10:51 PM) *
I believe anything I hear here first.

Well, that's a safe statement.

I believe anything I want to.
Kirk
That girl's got talent!!
Pataphysician
I saw Jim Fetzer's whole long, detailed lecture on cable TV (he's the head of 911 scholars). He's a complete idiot. His theories are not worth further investigation.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 3 2007, 01:31 PM) *

only that it is worth further investigation. It's almost as mysterious as this.


The above is always worth further investigation.

The theories on the "scholars for 9/11 truth" site are not worth further investigation, because everything they claim as being evidence of government run controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7 has already been debunked.
traineraz
QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 2 2007, 02:39 PM) *

The posting and link disappeared. The link has mysteriously has since been changed several times. This is creepy and, if anything makes me think there might be more to it than I would have originally thought. What's worse are the implications . . .

That the folks hosting your blog are Republicans?
Jaded Prole
um, no.
speedle
That's just us repubicans trying to get into the whole web 2.0 spirit, ya know?
G&C
QUOTE(speedle @ Feb 5 2007, 11:33 AM) *
repubicans
Absomphe
If you're gonna spell it incorrectly, it's spelled 'repubelickins'.
sixela
QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 3 2007, 02:33 PM) *

No, conspiracies happen all the time. The invasion of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy, planned long befor [sic] September 11.


No argument from me (or most of the world outside of the US, for that matter). The WTC buildings collapse is quite another matter.

Let me quote your assertion again (emphasis mine):
QUOTE

demolition (along with the planes) doesn't seem any less plausible than the official story.


That's not only assigning a semblance of plausibility to the conspiracies, but even claiming they are just as plausible as the official story.

To believe the conspiracy theories around that event have even a shred of believability about them isn't skeptical, it's extremely gullible -- your emotions about the current US administration are clouding your judgement.

Credit the administration with all the plausible sinister machinations you will. There are more than enough of these; there's no need to pile on the totally implausible ones.
Gertz
What good old Maddox has to say.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(sixela @ Feb 6 2007, 07:26 AM) *


Let me quote your assertion again (emphasis mine):
QUOTE

demolition (along with the planes) doesn't seem any less plausible than the official story.


That's not only assigning a semblance of plausibility to the conspiracies, but even claiming they are just as plausible as the official story.

To believe the conspiracy theories around that event have even a shred of believability about them isn't skeptical, it's extremely gullible -- your emotions about the current US administration are clouding your judgement.

Credit the administration with all the plausible sinister machinations you will. There are more than enough of these; there's no need to pile on the totally implausible ones.



Well put.

I will however cite a study by demolition experts at Protec which puts nails in the implosion theory coffin and buries it for good.
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STU...rd%208-8-06.pdf

If you still think implosion of the WTC is as plausible as the NIST report's explanation (you know, the official one) after reading that, then you're wasting your time here and should be out there stopping Human-Alien hybrid clones from invading planet earth Agent Mulder.

Here is a response on Guardian's web log from this morning from someone responding to an article exposing fraudulent conspiracy theories who puts the case extremely well:

QUOTE
February 6, 2007 10:02 AM

I've raised this point repeatedly here, and elsewhere with conspiracy theorists. Not one has attempted to address it.

1) Consider how fiendishly complex and precise the demolition-design required to bring down the WTC towers would be. Have you ever seen inside a bog-standard 20-floor tower block that's about to be brought down? Multiply that exponentially. We're talking literally hundreds of detonators, each precisely located within inches, and timed to milliseconds. We also need miles of cable to join it all up. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not ask why none of this stuff was found)

2) Consider the consequences if this operation went wrong and only partial detonation occurred, leaving half a tower and shed-loads of evidence. That's not a risk you're going to take, is it? Think about it - not only evidence that you were trying to demolish the towers, but a dead giveaway that the planes were a red herring, with all that implies. Ask yourself again - is that a risk you're going to take?

3) Consider the damage that is bound to be done to your fragile, volatile and very carefully located demolition equipment when you (a) fly a goddam airliner into at at 300mph (b) let a jet fuel fire burn all over it for the best part of an hour. Even if (and it's a very very large if) you know where the plane is going to hit and how fast, and even if (even bigger) you can adjust for that,the course of the fire is not predictable.

If you can build a demolition-design that can survive that, 100% guaranteed, TWICE (oh, and with the planes impacting in two different locations don't forget), and still function perfectly, you're not a demolitionist, you're a magician. But please, post here telling me how you'd do it.

It simply doesn't hold up.

The rest of the conspiracy falls down around it
Jaded Prole
Thanks for the info. Though the pres may seem like a human/alien clone hybrid.

I still feel that, ruling out demolition, this administration knew about the probablity of the attack and purposely failed to stop it once it was in progress because they knew it would suit their nefarious plans. Complicity is nearly as bad as direct participation.

As for the odds of a demolition going so well, the odds of all (not just the two) buildings falling directly down into such a neat footprint are pretty stupendous as well, especially when not all of the building were hit by planes (which they were designed to withstand the impact of). Still, I don't buy any theory at present and I'm not an engineer. It seems to me that any of the theories either way have aspects of implausibility but there is evidence of complicit policy that allowed it all to happen.
Kirk
I don't think they knew about it, anymore than they know about all the other plans to kill us, and I'm sure there are many. It was synchronistity at best.
sixela
QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 6 2007, 06:19 PM) *

I still feel that, ruling out demolition, this administration knew about the probablity of the attack and purposely failed to stop it once it was in progress because they knew it would suit their nefarious plans. Complicity is nearly as bad as direct participation.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence. Are you suggesting the current administration is competent? blink.gif
sixela
QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 6 2007, 06:19 PM) *

Thanks for the info. Though the pres may seem like a human/alien clone hybrid.

I doubt that he inherited the looks of a human and the intelligence of any alien race smart enough to reach our planet, if you ask me. Or perhaps they never intended it to become president while still in the larval phase.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(sixela @ Feb 6 2007, 02:19 PM) *

QUOTE(Jaded Prol @ Feb 6 2007, 06:19 PM) *

I still feel that, ruling out demolition, this administration knew about the probablity of the attack and purposely failed to stop it once it was in progress because they knew it would suit their nefarious plans. Complicity is nearly as bad as direct participation.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence. Are you suggesting the current administration is competent? blink.gif



Well, if 9/11 happened because they ignored red flags and had a weak anti-terrorism policy prior to 9/11, then they are incompetent. If 9/11 happened because they orchestrated and planned the implosion of WTC 1 and 2 to coincide with 4 plane hijackings and crashes, then they're fucking magicians and we should all bow down in awe of their amazing feat.
Provenance
Commentary in the Guardian about 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change."

QUOTE
A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact

Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense

George Monbiot
Tuesday February 6, 2007
The Guardian

There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.

The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men that airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11 2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy films, Loose Change is sharp and swift, with a thumping soundtrack, slick graphics and a calm and authoritative voiceover. Its makers claim that it has now been watched by 100 million people.
The Pentagon, the film maintains, was not hit by a commercial airliner. There was "no discernible trace" of a plane found in the wreckage, and the entrance and exit holes in the building were far too small. It was hit by a cruise missile. The twin towers were brought down by means of "a carefully planned controlled demolition". You can see the small puffs of smoke caused by explosives just below the cascading sections. All other hypotheses are implausible: the fire was not hot enough to melt steel and the towers fell too quickly. Building 7 was destroyed by the same means a few hours later.

Flight 93 did not crash, but was redirected to Cleveland airport, where the passengers were taken into a Nasa building and never seen again. Their voices had been cloned by the Los Alamos laboratories and used to make fake calls to their relatives. The footage of Osama bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the attacks, was faked. The US government carried out this great crime for four reasons: to help Larry Silverstein, who leased the towers, to collect his insurance money; to assist insider traders betting on falling airline stocks; to steal the gold in the basement; and to grant George Bush new executive powers, so that he could carry out his plans for world domination.

Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has not yet been liquidised, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the complete absence of scientific advice. At one point, the presenter asks: "So what brought down the twin towers? Let's ask the experts." But they don't ask the experts. The film-makers take some old quotes, edit them to remove any contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as further evidence of conspiracy.

The only people they interview are a janitor, a group of firemen, and a flight instructor. They let the janitor speak at length, but cut the firemen off in mid-sentence. The flight instructor speaks in short clips, which give the impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was incapable of hitting the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he had "no doubt" that Hanjour could have done it.

Where are the structural engineers, the materials scientists, the specialists in ballistics, explosives or fire? The film-makers now say that the third edition of the film will be fact-checked by an expert, but he turns out to be "a theology professor". They don't name him, but I would bet that it's David Ray Griffin, who also happens to be the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracists.

The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble.

If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell the greatest story ever told.

Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is why the holes weren't bigger.

The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.

Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He shows that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.

So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's population. There is no reasoning with this madness. People believe Loose Change because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, privatisation, inequality - while permanently wrecking their credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for the New American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.

The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.

Donnie Darko
Yeah, that's the article the comment I posted was in response to. Funny stuff.

Here's another provacative bit on 9/11 conspiracy theories from Penn & Teller
LoucheLush
Man, it's just like JFK. People with way-cooler jobs, making more money than us want to keep the truth secret. Guess what? It's stays a freakin' secret. cdog-plain.gif
Le Gimp
Lets not be bringing true conspiracies into this discussion please.
Jaded Prole
Where's my foil hat?
Le Gimp
IPB Image
traineraz
At long last, a true photo of Gimpy!
thegreenimp
The real conspiracy. blink.gif
thegreenimp
sleepy.gif
Donnie Darko
Hey JBM, can I borrow some money?
Steyr850
What a ho!















Red hair and all.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.