Your favorite nutjob conspiracy theories

[Skykid]

And yes, I read all the debunking material. It's not concrete.

you are on the fence because you want to be on the fence. i want to know why you want to be.

Because there is not enough evidence to the contrary.

It is a totally logical reason.

[Lloyd Mangram]

^Thanks for the info Lloyd. Can you explain the crimp at the top left corner of wtc7 as it went down?

The crimp, or kink, appears at the location of the building's east penthouse. According to the NIST report, column 79 was the first to fail, which in turn caused columns 80 and 81 to fail, which led to the propagation of the collapse across the structure. Column 79 is under the east penthouse, hence the kink appearing there.

It's kind of strange how conspiracy theorists try to portray the kink as a sign of a controlled demolition. They point out that, in a demolition, one central supporting column is taken out first in order to make the structure collapse in on itself. OK sure... but in a structural collapse due to fire+damage, do they think that one column will not or can not fail before the others? Do they think that several columns must fail simultaneously?

I mean, the logic here doesn't make any sense to me. Isn't it reasonable to assume that one column will fail before the others and the collapse will propagate from that failure? If multiple columns had failed in the exact same instant, wouldn't the conspiracy theorists claim that as being fishy? Wouldn't they argue that failure would have most likely initiated at the location of a single column?


I watched the last clip you linked to (and not for the first time, btw), and it makes some pretty weak claims. It talks about the 'pull it' comment, which we've already discussed in this thread, and sure enough, it includes an audio snippet of a demolition worker referring to 'pulling' building 6, but sneakily omits the rest of his comment about pulling the building down with cables attached to cranes to manage its collapse. It also tries to create a sense ominous collusion with remarks like '...but somehow rescue workers knew that building seven would fall.' Oh, somehow! It couldn't have been because they had observed a huge bulge forming in the face of the building. It couldn't have been they were aware that collapse is a distinct possibility in that kind of situation. No, because they didn't demonstrate an amazing lack of awareness and experience by remaining in the building until it collapsed upon them, we can assume that they were in on some kind of conspiracy. I mean, hey, if that doesn't convince you, just look at all these shots of Silverstein looking like a shifty jewish businessman!

But the thing is, DEL, I don't really have time to sit here writing lengthy replies and looking up info you could look up for yourself, just to have you go "hmm, interesting... but what about <insert here talking point number X from the conspiracy sites>?"

The fact that you're still going on about the 'pull it' comment even though we've already discussed it in this thread doesn't inspire me with much confidence that you're spending much time reading the replies to your questions or checking the links offered. In fact, I'm starting to feel a bit silly for spending as much time on this as I already have. Don't take that the wrong way - I'm just letting you know that I doubt I'll be able to justify playing this game for much longer.

[Dale]

I really hate the term conspiracy theory. Some stuff is worthy of being called a Conspiracy Theory. But when anyone says anything that reflects badly on the government at large and it's called that term it's really freaken stupid. If things keep getting called that, no one will know when the government does do something wrong(which they have and will continue to do).

[Skykid]

I really hate the term conspiracy theory.

Agreed, there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory: there is only a theory and that's that.

[antron]

do you guys prefer just nut over nutjob too?

hopefully one day you will realize that your theory has nothing to do with the case at hand and everything to do with your head.

[Koa Zo]

If you play the Obama school speech backwards he reveals the truth about 2012.

[Dale]

No the term's just overused. It's just an excuse to ignore obvious corruption by slapping on a term that comes with negative interpretations.

[Skykid]

do you guys prefer just nut over nutjob too?

hopefully one day you will realize that your theory has nothing to do with the case at hand and everything to do with your head.

Sounds like we're the only ones using our heads...

Antron, I'm glad you've found complete closure on the most significant and complicated disaster ever to befall the US - it must be nice to be so self assured, and to have total faith in your media and government to hold absolutely nothing back.
But opinion is a right, no one needs you popping up every two posts to suggest they're a nut job for not accepting everything at face value.

[Ex-Cyber]

I really hate the term conspiracy theory.

Agreed, there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory: there is only a theory and that's that.

No the term's just overused. It's just an excuse to ignore obvious corruption by slapping on a term that comes with negative interpretations.

It's a very idiomatic term; perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but it is what it is. When people talk about "conspiracy theories", they're talking about beliefs that involve (explicitly or implicitly) an implausibly powerful conspiracy, often involving an implausibly powerful, large, and/or disciplined set of conspirators, for which no specific evidence exists. That's not the same thing as "group X conspired to do Y". Conspiracy theorists often avoid the word "conspiracy", but still make claims that imply a big conspiracy (for example, that the 9/11 Commission was basically an elaborate hoax).

do you guys prefer just nut over nutjob too?

hopefully one day you will realize that your theory has nothing to do with the case at hand and everything to do with your head.

Sounds like we're the only ones using our heads...

Antron, I'm glad you've found complete closure on the most significant and complicated disaster ever to befall the US - it must be nice to be so self assured, and to have total faith in your media and government to hold absolutely nothing back.
But opinion is a right, no one needs you popping up every two posts to suggest they're a nut job for not accepting everything at face value.

There's a difference between "not accepting everything at face value" and trying to poke holes in prevailing explanations just to be contrary and/or paranoid. To have a real point in criticizing a prevailing explanation you either need some new and credible evidence or a better explanation of the existing evidence, not just LOL GUYZ YOU'RE SO GULLIBLE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS FULL OF HOLES.

[DEL]

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

[spadgy]

Flat Earth Society for me! The fact that their idea's are so audaciously ridiculous, I almost want to join them!

[Ex-Cyber]

Flat Earth Society for me! The fact that their idea's are so audaciously ridiculous, I almost want to join them!

I love their explanation of gravity: the Earth is continually accelerating "upward" at 9.8 meters per second per second. I wonder how much kinetic energy we've picked up by now.

[Skykid]

There's a difference between "not accepting everything at face value" and trying to poke holes in prevailing explanations just to be contrary and/or paranoid.

Which I wouldn't and I'm not.

To have a real point in criticizing a prevailing explanation you either need some new and credible evidence or a better explanation of the existing evidence, not just LOL GUYZ YOU'RE SO GULLIBLE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS FULL OF HOLES.

Which I don't and wouldn't pretend to have. I'm neither bashing debunkers or conspiracy believers - I just don't think that either party has enough evidence to make either argument concrete, and that presents a problem for everyone.

[The n00b]

In fact, cameras at the gas station and hotel next to the pentagon were confiscated but only held for about a week. Their footage was shown numerous times shortly after their release. So why the conspiracy theory? Well the tapes didn't show anything but a flash and the footage was really grainy. Thus the tapes were forgotten about and most news stations turn to higher quality footage of the 9/11 attack.

Fast forward a couple years and you've got truthers claiming there's everything from aliens to Bush Jr planning the Iraq war on these tapes.

[antron]

Flat Earth Society for me! The fact that their idea's are so audaciously ridiculous, I almost want to join them!

how can you be so sure that the world isn't flat? have you been to outer space and seen it yourself? i've seen all the evidence and it's not concrete enough for me. it must make you feel so warm and fuzzy thinking you know it's round but it's nothing like the feeling I get knowing I'm not a sheep like you.

[Skykid]

Flat Earth Society for me! The fact that their idea's are so audaciously ridiculous, I almost want to join them!

how can you be so sure that the world isn't flat? have you been to outer space and seen it yourself? i've seen all the evidence and it's not concrete enough for me. it must make you feel so warm and fuzzy thinking you know it's round but it's nothing like the feeling I get knowing I'm not a sheep like you.

The Earth isn't round. Isaac Newton, a Brit who investigated theories outside of the proposed norm, found that the Earth's mass isn't evenly distributed at its poles and is indeed slightly squashed. This proved to be true: the distance from Earth's nucleus to sea level is about 21 km (13 mi) larger at the equator than at the poles.

Therefore the Earth isn't round Antron, it's closer to an oblate spheroid. You may believe whatever you like however, without fear of persecution.

[pcb_revival]

I toss this creppy image into the 9/11 mix.

Authentic 1979 advertisment apparently.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/webl ... es_wtc_ad/

[DEL]

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

[Skykid]

Bar all the other conspiracy nonsense (of which, a lot is quite evidently nonsense), it never fails to amaze me that the USAF didn't blow those planes out of the sky. It's the most advanced military on Earth, I always assumed they would be safe from such an attack, especially when the planes hit 15-20 minutes apart.

For whatever reason, I assumed wrong I suppose.

[DEL]

Skykid wrote;

Bar all the other conspiracy nonsense (of which, a lot is quite evidently nonsense), it never fails to amaze me that the USAF didn't blow those planes out of the sky. It's the most advanced military on Earth, I always assumed they would be safe from such an attack, especially when the planes hit 15-20 minutes apart.

For whatever reason, I assumed wrong I suppose.

In that vein, someone raised the point that the Pentagon must have ground-based anti-aircraft installations surrounding it (being the ops centre that it is), but again no shots were fired at whatever hit the Pentagon.

[Ex-Cyber]

Bar all the other conspiracy nonsense (of which, a lot is quite evidently nonsense), it never fails to amaze me that the USAF didn't blow those planes out of the sky. It's the most advanced military on Earth, I always assumed they would be safe from such an attack, especially when the planes hit 15-20 minutes apart.

From what I've read about it, there were delays in notifying the military and problems caused by the airliners having their transponders turned off. Apparently the protocol in airliner hijacking situations depended a lot on the civilian air traffic control system relaying information to the military, probably because the general assumption was that hijacking was primarily a hostage-taking tactic (which generally calls for civilian law enforcement response) and not a method of direct attack. Also, even though the planes hit around 20 minutes apart, the second flight apparently wasn't known to be hijacked at all until about 10 minutes before it hit (if I'm reading the timeline right), and this was apparently not relayed to the military immediately. Even if they were anticipating a second strike in general, they wouldn't be able to really do anything without confirmation of either which flight was hijacked or what the target was.

In that vein, someone raised the point that the Pentagon must have ground-based anti-aircraft installations surrounding it (being the ops centre that it is), but again no shots were fired at whatever hit the Pentagon.

I don't think anyone has shown any evidence suggesting that there were such defenses at the Pentagon; there seems to just be a presumption that they "must" be there. Even if it did have some kind of automated defense system, I'd expect it to be a missile defense system (keep in mind that there was still a very Cold War-influenced mentality; there's a Missile Defense Agency within the DoD, and just before 9/11 the Bush administration was ramping up missile defense efforts as a hedge against "rogue states"). Some truthers even specifically claim that the defenses at the Pentagon were anti-missile systems. Even if they had an anti-missile system, though (which is also not proven), it would probably be designed for ballistic missiles, which follow a flight path very different from that of a crashing airliner. I think it's most likely that they were focused on defending against foreign military attacks and assumed that the Air Force and/or Navy would be able to intercept any hostile aircraft long before it could get to Washington.

[adversity1]

Bar all the other conspiracy nonsense (of which, a lot is quite evidently nonsense), it never fails to amaze me that the USAF didn't blow those planes out of the sky. It's the most advanced military on Earth, I always assumed they would be safe from such an attack, especially when the planes hit 15-20 minutes apart.

For whatever reason, I assumed wrong I suppose.

Again, read "Touching History" by Lynn Spencer. All your questions are answered there.

You have enough money to buy cabs etc., you should have enough for a book or two.

[Skykid]

You have enough money to buy cabs etc., you should have enough for a book or two.

It's time that's the issue. It waits for no man.

[antron]

This proved to be true: the distance from Earth's nucleus to sea level is about 21 km (13 mi) larger at the equator than at the poles.

quote: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-The- ... 1815.shtml

This proved to be true: the distance from Earth's nucleus to sea level is about 21 km (13 mi) larger at the equator than at the poles.

I knew any scientific statemant made by you had to be copied and pasted verbatim from the internet.
Nice try at making yourself look scientifically competent.

[]

Your post is another example of the sheepish mentality that has led to the widespread belief that the world isn't flat. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming it's flat as a fact. I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to fully support either argument.

[/skykidish mentality]

[Skykid]

Of course it's copied and pasted you donut, do you actually think any old joe with an awareness of Newton's spheroid theory could actually produce those exact figures off the top of their head!

There must be something I'm doing that's really getting under your skin, eh?

[antron]

I'm sure you're not a dick in real life

wise man said: It's not good enough to be liked by the cool, you need to be called a dick by certain people on shmups forums.

Those people are 9/11 truthers.
(you get bonus points if they're collectors of pedophilic garbage)

[RGC]

.

[antron]

"Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."

Edit: ok, I'll turn this into a 'useful' post. antron, what for you would count as concrete evidence for ~spherical-earth? It's a curious position you take up, which makes me curious to hear more.

I actually calculated the circumference in a high school science project using Eratosthenes' method. The sun's ray's will strike the earth at different angles at different latitudes. I drove about 150 miles north and got a good enough reading to estimate about 25,000 miles circumference.

This is assuming the earth's gravity always pulls inward (to define 'level') And that the sun's rays are near parallel this far away. These are reasonable assumptions to reasonable people.

There's not much you can do with unreasonable people, besides have a little fun ridiculing them. My favorite response to an anti-evolutionist who thinks god set up everything to fool us, is: "The very idea that God would play such juvenile tricks is the true blasphemy"

You may have thought I actually think the earth is flat. I was just being a contrary prick, sorry about that.

[Skykid]

I'm sure you're not a dick in real life

wise man said: It's not good enough to be liked by the cool, you need to be called a dick by certain people on shmups forums.

Those people are 9/11 truthers.
(you get bonus points if they're collectors of pedophilic garbage)

Now we've arrived in the zone of schoolyard comments I see I've caused some upset. It's utterly pointless, I don't want to argue. I feel as though you did misunderstand my standpoint that people shouldn't be belittled for their beliefs whether they wish to side with something or sit on the fence, but I accept responsibility for stoking the fire on your responses, as you did on mine. Often net banter can become pointless and childish: a strange pursuit in trying to get a rise out of someone which is universally acknowledged as a complete waste of time.

I do hope you'll accept an apology. I would like to say for the record that I never put myself into a 'truther' camp on the 9/11 subject, and I do accept there are plenty of logical explanations for much of the seemingly unexplained, some of which I've seen and read, others I haven't. Despite that, my personal feeling is that no matter how much material you digest, adverse or otherwise, the absolute truth (that's every last detail) on something like 9/11 is out of reach to the general public - and that was the only real point I was trying to make.

My views only, I'll leave you to yours and call it a night.

[antron]

Nice response.

I totaly didn't expect you to make me feel guilty about my comments now.