Terrorist Bombings at 2013 Boston Marathon today...

[Ed Oscuro]

Conspiracy research: We have lots of questions but we don't want your answers

[BryanM]

Eh. Ironically on the topic, one of the suspects was a big fan of beloved conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

[dcharlieJP]

yeah, i want conspiracy theorists take on the fact that Alex and his brand of Volume 11 "everything is a conspiracy" may have been the catalist .... but let me guess..... blaming Alex is a conspiracy isn't it because he's speaking against the Gov?

[Skykid]

Conspiracy research: We have lots of questions but we don't want your answers

That is conspiracy theorist behaviour, yes. But what about some of the non-conspiracy questions I offered up for debate in my post/exercise in futility?

You're of course more than welcome to tackle any of them and provide substantial evidence to answer those questions. I'd be most happy and intrigued to have the matters settled actually.

Pick any one.

How about the fake Bin Laden video, let's start with that one: why were we shown a faked confession?

Go.

[BryanM]

... this just reminded me of how Osama Bin Laden personally decided who won the 2004 presidential election. "Kerry? No. I'm more of a... Bush man. He does the kinds of things I like to see happen."

Cunning fucking bastard. We were played all right, by all sides, at all times.

And we're friggin' sheep that deserve it.

[Skykid]

You guys...

I offered a completely different angle from conspiracy theories, suggestions and examples of why you shouldn't always accept the official line, and you just carry on with the schoolyard antics.

You obviously don't have any answers, which is fine, that concludes the point nicely. My problem is that you don't want any answers either, and in that respect, you are sheep.

[BryanM]

you are sheep.

But I just saaiid thaaaaat.

And was dead serious about the 2004 tape being a determining factor in that election.

Because I'm suuuuper bored I'll tackle the q-train to the best of my ability. Please forgive my many shortcomings:


> Why can top bankers bail themselves out with my money with little to no govt. resistance?

Because... they literally run the world? Literally? And openly?

Campaign donation/mills-bills kind of "job" as a reward = open bribery and corruption.


> Why did those guys say weapons of mass destruction when there weren't any, don't they have decent intel right at the top?

With regards to Iraq, the White House did in fact make all that up and leaned on people to say what they wanted them to say. The CIA, NSA, etc, all knew better.


> Why couldn't I get one clear image of Bin Laden's dead body?

It would be ghoulish and kind of rude. A lot of people would like to oogle Timothy McVeigh's corpse; we shouldn't make exceptions for people just because they're tan or foreign.


> Why did they drop BL in the ocean in accordance to his Muslim rights rather than take a little footage first?

Eh wot. They have photographs already, I don't see how a corpse becomes more interesting in video format unless you put on a kind of puppet show or something.


> Why did Larry Silverstien say they 'decided to pull' WTC 7?

What's a Silverstien. It sounds terrible.


> Why did the government show me a fake video of a bad Bin Laden lookalike claiming responsibility for 9/11? Why have they never apologised and admitted it's erroneous evidence?

As far as I know that particular video was mooshed in its formatting making him look like a fat. The translation offered of his conversation was "interpreted" pretty far toward the side of Cobra Commander, completely true.


> Why did the BBC and German news networks show me fake footage of Tibetan riots and change the subtitles of a woman being interviewed on television?

I know nothing about this, except that there are forums out there that censor BBC. Because it might refer to penis. Which makes me giggle every time the BBC comes up.


> Why did British newspapers crop photographs of Tibetan rioters assaulting downed police officers to change the tone of the image?

idk I can't understand the British.


> Why are so many Presidents and Prime Ministers masons? Is that a trend I should be interested in?

Uh ehhhh... it wasn't that many...

... Maybe you should sign up if you think they're kind of cool. The Rationalwiki page suggests you'll be spending most of your time debating whether you should have sandwiches or snausages for breakfast. To some, that may be heaven.


> Are elections really free and democratic, or is someone hand picking these chumps for me? If so, why? That's not what I signed up for.

Depending on the system used, the choice is already made for you yes. A douche or a turd sandwich: You decide. Either is fine.

Beautiful shenanigans can take even that away from us. There's no way of knowing who won the 2000 USA presidential election as example. Drat margin of error.


> Why can't I trust news media to be impartial?

Because they're a for-profit business run by for-profit men that are primarily concerned with their own profit.

Here in the States, NPR and PBS are remarkably balanced by objective measurements.


> Why can't I trust news media to provide the truth?

Because comforting/terrifying lies do better to drive up the price of ads than things that make us "feel bad". Eeyore appearing on screen to inform everyone that yes, global warming is real, and yes, it could likely end with the extinction of the human species, and yes, it's all our fault - that doesn't sell well.


> Has my government ever conducted a false flag operation to serve their interests? If the answer is yes, what would stop them doing the same thing again?

Eehhh I don't think they even bother with that step anymore. It's not really required with the collusion they have with media.

Would they kill civilians to do what they want to do? Yeah sure it's possible. Seems like it'd be easier just to pretend to be "incompetent" and let/goad the guy you want to glass-parking-lot punch you first.

[Skykid]

Thank you!

> Why can top bankers bail themselves out with my money with little to no govt. resistance?

Because... they literally run the world? Literally? And openly?

Campaign donation/mills-bills kind of "job" as a reward = open bribery and corruption.

Right on. Which is where conspiracy theorists wild ideas about global banking powers germinate from. They've gone too far with it, but the basis is sound.

> Why did those guys say weapons of mass destruction when there weren't any, don't they have decent intel right at the top?

With regards to Iraq, the White House did in fact make all that up and leaned on people to say what they wanted them to say. The CIA, NSA, etc, all knew better.

Of course. Which is why, when it comes to outright deception, it's perfectly acceptable to ask the following question:

> Why couldn't I get one clear image of Bin Laden's dead body?

It would be ghoulish and kind of rude. A lot of people would like to oogle Timothy McVeigh's corpse; we shouldn't make exceptions for people just because they're tan or foreign.

Doesn't fly. I stand by my belief that no Bin Laden death occurred in Pakistan, because evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive. In-fact, for the most high-profile wanted man of all time, good evidence is nigh-on non-existent. That's not an anomaly.

> Why did they drop BL in the ocean in accordance to his Muslim rights rather than take a little footage first?

Eh wot. They have photographs already, I don't see how a corpse becomes more interesting in video format unless you put on a kind of puppet show or something.

The photographs are so bad, and were so late. You don't sincerely believe they represent undeniable proof of the cadaver in question? Realistically, was the real BL killed and obtained in Pakistan, yes, there would be ample footage and evidence - taste isn't an issue, and neither are his funeral rights under Muslim law. Pull the other one FFS.
The fact is he wasn't there, it was as false a story as... weapons of mass destruction.

> Why did Larry Silverstien say they 'decided to pull' WTC 7?

What's a Silverstien. It sounds terrible.

He's the leaseholder for WTC 7, the building that wasn't hit by a plane, standing in an adjacent block surrounded by a ton of other buildings which all stayed standing while it dropped in freefall. Official line: internal fires started by falling debris (you do the math on that one), Silverstien's TV gaffe: "We decided to pull it."
Someone's lying. Someone's lying big. Question is why.

> Why did the government show me a fake video of a bad Bin Laden lookalike claiming responsibility for 9/11? Why have they never apologised and admitted it's erroneous evidence?

As far as I know that particular video was mooshed in its formatting making him look like a fat. The translation offered of his conversation was "interpreted" pretty far toward the side of Cobra Commander, completely true.

He's not in the video. It's 100% not the same guy: no formatting moosh changes skin tone, bone structure and most importantly, behavioural aspects (BL wasn't well known for grinning like an idiot. He comes across as intelligent and serious in all other footage.)
Question is: why fake it? Is it because he's already dead? (Please revert to Pakistan Raid question.)

> Why did the BBC and German news networks show me fake footage of Tibetan riots and change the subtitles of a woman being interviewed on television?

I know nothing about this, except that there are forums out there that censor BBC. Because it might refer to penis. Which makes me giggle every time the BBC comes up.

German news channels publicly apologised on air 2 weeks later for falsifying footage, the BBC didn't. Nearly all the information regarding the Tibetan riots in the run up to the Chinese Olympics was doctored and spun to scupper the fanfare the country was about to receive. It prompted idiots to steal torches from wheelchair bound athletes in public places.

> Why did British newspapers crop photographs of Tibetan rioters assaulting downed police officers to change the tone of the image?

idk I can't understand the British.

Me either. But in this respect, US media is the same: all the images are circulated through the Murdoch & Pals network.

> Why are so many Presidents and Prime Ministers masons? Is that a trend I should be interested in?

Uh ehhhh... it wasn't that many...

... Maybe you should sign up if you think they're kind of cool. The Rationalwiki page suggests you'll be spending most of your time debating whether you should have sandwiches or snausages for breakfast. To some, that may be heaven.

Many Masons have run the world's most powerful countries. Not a conspiracy, a fact, and certainly not hidden. Just makes you wonder about free and democratic elections, and reality. Freemasonry works around having something to offer, and giving a fellow club member a leg-up. You run a school, I can give your kid a free scholarship, in return you give me a Yacht from your Yacht company. Deal, shake on it. Now lets have sausages.

> Are elections really free and democratic, or is someone hand picking these chumps for me? If so, why? That's not what I signed up for.

Depending on the system used, the choice is already made for you yes. A douche or a turd sandwich: You decide. Either is fine.

Beautiful shenanigans can take even that away from us. There's no way of knowing who won the 2000 USA presidential election as example. Drat margin of error.

Precisely. See above.

> Why can't I trust news media to be impartial?

Because they're a for-profit business run by for-profit men that are primarily concerned with their own profit.

Here in the States, NPR and PBS are remarkably balanced by objective measurements.

I don't believe any news media is remarkably balanced. Profit is the bottom line (no pun intended) but media also influences public opinion and political support (and war support), so there are other powers invested in it too.

> Why can't I trust news media to provide the truth?

Because comforting/terrifying lies do better to drive up the price of ads than things that make us "feel bad". Eeyore appearing on screen to inform everyone that yes, global warming is real, and yes, it could likely end with the extinction of the human species, and yes, it's all our fault; that doesn't sell well.

On one hand, correct. But the previous statement already kind of covered the rest.

> Has my government ever conducted a false flag operation to serve their interests? If the answer is yes, what would stop them doing the same thing again?

Eehhh I don't think they even bother with that step anymore. It's not really required with the collusion they have with media.

Wow, you're willing to give the US Government, after all it's said and done, the benefit of the doubt regarding never conducting another false flag operation, large or small? You kind of (sort of) answered/undermined your own statement by mentioning the collusion with the media: that makes the option even more viable and the practice even easier to disguise. See Bin Laden/Pakistan example.

Would they kill civilians to do what they want to do? Yeah sure it's possible. Seems like it'd be easier just to pretend to be "incompetent" and let/goad the guy you want to glass-parking-lot punch you first.

They'll do whatever they need to to get what they want, and have you standing behind them waving a flag and singing an anthem.

None of this really matters tbh, it's par for the course. I'm only trying to illustrate that conspiracy theorists have a decent basis for their arguments, but end up piling shit on top them until they're completely obscured. One of those "what were we talking about again?" situations.

So people can take the piss all they like and post pictures of cats with tin-foil hats on, but when it comes to real deception they don't even know the half of it. Live in blissful ignorance, why not.

[Ed Oscuro]

How about the fake Bin Laden video, let's start with that one: why were we shown a faked confession?

Go.

There's a difference between saying "here's a bunch of random shit I don't understand, do my research for me" and doing the usual Conspiracy Research angle, but it's not really that big a difference. Of course I would never say "let's be naiive about everything and no consequences!!1" but it's hard to understand what a bunch of apparently random "strange happenings" are supposed to weigh towards. If connected they might gravitate towards a bigger case; if not, they're just random unexplained things.

Anyway, the Osama "confession" video (which I never saw, actually, and didn't care about since we already knew Osama was a bad guy from the Clinton era) is an interesting one. Looking it up on Google quickly fills the window with the various usual suspects peddling hysterical, poorly-researched nonsense leavened with occasional facts and citations - Prison Planet, InfoWars, a bunch of sites with the word "facts" in their names, Debunking 9/11, The Onion, etc. Speaking of the rush to build a case out of very little: Many attempt to use this WaPo article to prove the omission of 9/11 indictments from Osama's FBI Most Wanted page reflects some apparent fact that he wasn't involved, a claim which is actually laughable: If Osama's involvement in 9/11 was faked - nevermind the video for a moment - they surely wouldn't have any trouble carrying the fake over to the FBI page as well; the point that they didn't need to update the page is a more direct answer. Ironically the FBI's motive in not piling on the indictments is that it might be prejudicial to the conduct of any possible trial against Bin Laden, highlighting a key difference of the realities of U.S. law, which attempts to insulate against even egregious misstatements of truth and distortions by any Administration, and the anti-cheerleading crowd which runs in the opposite direction.

About the video. I'm almost tempted to say, simply, who cares? Real Osama made plenty of incriminating recordings (the lack of admissions in the early recordings may well be down to a fear that the U.S. would soon find him, a fear which probably partly left him over his near decade of freedom following the attacks, combined with the knowledge that the attacks were pinned on him anyway).

In my view - and in deference to the hysterics referenced above - I have never believed that the Bush Administration was especially trustworthy, so the appearance of yet another yellowcake would be nothing new to me. But it seems that there's not a lot of attention given to this video because it ultimately has had no real impact. I don't mean to say it's not worrying that yet another possible Administration forgery shows up - but I have to say that even in late 2001 we were already very suspicious of Bush, and indeed before his election as well. We weren't yet wise to their manipulations but the truth did come out in time. Yet in 2007 I see various "research outlets" still flogging the idea that the whole idea of Osama's involvement is an Administration conspiracy.

Some of the "evidence" cited to show the "confession" video is of somebody else - that Osama is wearing a ring (can't see it) in opposition to Islamic custom (is painting your beard anti-Islamic?) and that he's fatter - either is inconclusive or based on the obvious stupidity of viewers attempting to interpret individual video frames, which absolutely is true of the unqualified "fat Osama" argument which nobody ever sees to progress past. Is the facial bone structure different? I really don't care enough to watch the videos, but I will say that trying to naively compare his face as imaged from different angles proves nothing (as seen in the comparison screengrabs you show). Osama joking on a privately-made video not intended for release proves even less. I'm sure we can hunt down lots of footage of President Johnson joking around and acting not at all like the infamously sedate and staid presence he affected for his television broadcasts.

There are references to a German news outlet claiming the translation of Osama's (or Fake Osama's, as it may be, in which case you have to wonder who would gain to put out a video which doesn't actually say, in translation, what it's supposed to say) comments is wrong. This may well be but unfortunately I haven't found any "corrected" transcript elsewhere.

The funniest thing? It was "amazing" the US Army found the video in Jalalabad, isn't it? But maybe you will remember the location of the place where we finally caught up with him.

Wrapping up a couple of your other talking points:

I don't understand what your repeated mention of "Osama's Muslim funeral rights" is meant to get at, unless you are making a severe mistake. Yes, dumping the body in the ocean is not in accordance with typical Muslim practice, but aside from the fact that he was lucky not to be fed alive into a comically large smokestack like Ernst Blofeld, or worse (I'm envisoning a man-sized blender staffed by man-sized animatronics of the Team America cast), there was arguably a vital U.S. policy interest in removing the possibility his resting place would become a site of pilgrimage. The ordinary Muslim practice, by the way, is to bury the body within a day, so if you are repeatedly saying that we could have trucked the body all over the globe for a Farewell World Tour, you are dead wrong. That would have certainly sparked widespread outrage and condemnation. Dumping the body after (presumably men) washed it and uttering a few remarks is a nice compromise between the Islamic custom (which is a bit different, of course, from an absolute prohibition) and the military and political necessity. I'm not at all certain there was any state which even wanted to publicly accept his body for burial, anyway.

Another obvious gaffe: Your disparagement of the widely accepted theory that fires weakened the structure to the point of collapse is tantamount to saying you can't believe the twin towers collapsed either - the causes are essentially the same: Spray-on fireproofing material with too short a period of resistance and the buckling of the steel supporting structure of the buildings from heat. You would also do well to weigh the words of a typical 9/11 truther website, to the effect of "there were only small and limited fires at WTC7," against the representation of those same facts as reported here, taking careful note of the relatively short two-hour window for protection of the beams by the spray-on material, the actual length of time the fires burned, and the presence of certain materials and equipment within the site.

[Jonathan Ingram]

That is conspiracy theorist behaviour, yes. But what about some of the non-conspiracy questions I offered up for debate in my post/exercise in futility?

You mean like these ones?

Why can top bankers bail themselves out with my money with little to no govt. resistance?

Why can't I trust news media to provide the truth?

Why can't I trust news media to be impartial?

Are elections really free and democratic, or is someone hand picking these chumps for me? If so, why? That's not what I signed up for.

All of these were answered more than a century ago. You just chose not to notice.

[Ed Oscuro]

And there isn't just one interpretation of the answers to those questions, either, which differs in details of the underpinning theory but which remains coherent and acceptably in-tune with the facts. Now that's a delicious dish, I mean.

[Skykid]

If Osama's involvement in 9/11 was faked - nevermind the video for a moment -

I'm not claiming his involvement was faked, I haven't enough evidence of his involvement either way, and neither have you. All I know is he ain't in the video. I don't need to go to any CT website for the lowdown there, just watch it and be rational.

About the video. I'm almost tempted to say, simply, who cares?

That's a huge differing of perspectives. If you accept the video is fake, then you accept an enormous can of worms. It should prompt questions as to why a fake was necessary, why in the 13 year manhunt you never saw a peep out of him again and why there was so little raw evidence provided surrounding his death. Personally, I believe a huge ball of lies were spun on several fronts to make the middle eastern war possible, but I don't pretend to know the specifics. Anyone failing to question glaring inconsistencies and logic (like, why the fudge would it take the US 13 years to find an ill-equipped Middle Eastern guy with the largest price on his head on earth) is choosing to be oblivious.

In my view - and in deference to the hysterics referenced above - I have never believed that the Bush Administration was especially trustworthy, so the appearance of yet another yellowcake would be nothing new to me. But it seems that there's not a lot of attention given to this video because it ultimately has had no real impact. I don't mean to say it's not worrying that yet another possible Administration forgery shows up - but I have to say that even in late 2001 we were already very suspicious of Bush, and indeed before his election as well. We weren't yet wise to their manipulations but the truth did come out in time. Yet in 2007 I see various "research outlets" still flogging the idea that the whole idea of Osama's involvement is an Administration conspiracy.

Well you and everyone else I hope. It was a foul administration that tainted the image of the entire country and left the world in a ravaged state. Untrustworthy would be a kind way to put it, but if you've already made that step then you're perfectly capable of wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Again, nothing to do with CT's, and more to do with questioning the official line.

ordinary Muslim practice, by the way, is to bury the body within a day, so if you are repeatedly saying that we could have trucked the body all over the globe for a Farewell World Tour, you are dead wrong. That would have certainly sparked widespread outrage and condemnation.

Yes, they're the Muslim rights (funeral) I was referring to, and apologies, but that explanation is complete and utter rubbish. The US don't give a flying fuck about outraging the Muslim community, they've been murdering them with heavy artillery for ten years. It's not common practice for G.I.'s to wash the bodies of the civilians wot they just massacred, and neither is it in the US's interest to provide any such service for public enemy no.1. I'm not saying a morbid Gaddafi museum is in order (he didn't get buried in accordance to his Muslim rights funnily enough, and he was killed by... Muslims) but ensuring you have decent evidence to provide to the nations of the world is PARAMOUNT. If the body needs to go on ice for that, so be it.
Actually killing the guy is far more likely to prompt an Al Qaeda backlash than having him on camera in HD, but oddly enough, they didn't even flinch.

You'll have to forgive me, I just can't fathom how someone so obviously intelligent would just accept that reasoning for dropping him straight in the sea (land burial possible? Why fly hundreds of miles from a landlocked position?). His grave would far more likely be desecrated than end up a site of pilgrimage, especially after the new puppet government comes in. Al Qaeda aren't quite that popular with the domestic populace (unless forced).

Another obvious gaffe: Your disparagement of the widely accepted theory that fires weakened the structure to the point of collapse is tantamount to saying you can't believe the twin towers collapsed either - the causes are essentially the same: Spray-on fireproofing material with too short a period of resistance and the buckling of the steel supporting structure of the buildings from heat. You would also do well to weigh the words of a typical 9/11 truther website, to the effect of "there were only small and limited fires at WTC7," against the representation of those same facts as reported here, taking careful note of the relatively short two-hour window for protection of the beams by the spray-on material, the actual length of time the fires burned, and the presence of certain materials and equipment within the site.

I don't consider the suspicion surrounding WTC7 to be a gaffe. I know the official report, but have you investigated historical evidence for buildings collapsing from small internal fires, fitted with sprinkler systems, in complete and unhindered freefall, inside of 7 hours? It's unprecedented. That no other surrounding buildings suffered the same fate is even more unlikely.
And there's Silverstien's comment of course, which is even more bizarre, but makes perfect sense when you consider the enormous improbability of WTC7 falling like a house of cards all on its lonesome and not some other building that was hit with the same debris.

All of these were answered more than a century ago. You just chose not to notice.

How do you mean?

[Friendly]

What's there to discuss? Most of this boils down to the fact that there's a money elite. It's neither a secret nor a conspiracy.

[Jonathan Ingram]

How do you mean?

I mean, the capitalist system that we live in is hardly new by this point. It may be at a different, more advanced stage, but the principles on which it is based are the same as ever. Its innards were meticulously analyzed and dissected from different angles more than a century ago which makes your questions seem more than a little strange. The answers to them have been known for quite a while, and none of them dwell in the realm of conspiracy theories.

What's there to discuss? Most of this boils down to the fact that there's a money elite. It neither a secret nor a conspiracy.

This couldn`t be said enough. We live a stratified society where the pursuit of profits is not only allowed, but encouraged and promoted. And given the tendency of the capital to concentrate in as fewer hands as possible over time(which is an objective law of capitalism, not a conspiracy of any sort), is it really of any surprise that five(or less) percent of the planet`s population end up with more money than the rest and use their wealth to establish a monopoly on politics and information? Where`s the conspiracy here? As certain someone said: "The economic formation of society is a process of natural history".

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't consider the suspicion surrounding WTC7 to be a gaffe. I know the official report, but have you investigated historical evidence for buildings collapsing from small internal fires, fitted with sprinkler systems

Which had no water...

What does my personal experience with this have to do with anything? At many points in our lives we have good reasons to accept, and in fact do accept, expert testimony, even without a second thought. You might say you have personal experience with the hardened and heat-treated metals in a car in that it runs day after day. But of course this is a very different situation than the steel in a building, at a critical load-bearing point with many tons overhead, being exposed to heat consistently.

Observe how confused the Truther construction of the of the building collapse narrative has become:

Because Truthers know nothing about engineering, it had to be a bomb; they couldn't accept that they actually know jack shit about the subject, so it had to be a bomb. Fires? Proof of a bomb (though, just maybe, an unusual type of bomb). Sparks from battery backup systems? Proof of a bomb.

Few Truthers stopped to ponder why there was spray-on insulation covering the structural steel in the twin towers in the first place. Nor did many, once they had started rolling along with their bomb hypothesis, consider that they could still have alleged a conspiracy, just one that required an attack identical to what we know happened, except that it was instigated in the seat of power in America, rather than by the terrorists. But the arrogance of the Truther blinds him to using simple explanations, when he can construct highly convoluted and even laughably bad explanations based on the few poor observations he can make from television footage. It might also have revealed that there was very little reason to suspect government involvement; it was much more profitable for the Truther to keep insisting that facts "don't add up" to make it seem as if they have reached the few threads of evidence, on which a simple tug - if only they could! - would unravel the whole conspiracy. So for the Truther, quite often a good amount of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt serves the purpose much better than an honest appraisal of the situation. I don't mean that they intend to lie, as a rule; it just so happens that when you follow the honest observations of many experts, you find out that there's nothing really mysterious here, and previously "unexplained facts" are either explained, or shown to be of no significance.

One of my favorites is that somebody tried to make a case based off somebody's (Cheney's, I think) recollections about what was said as they sat in a room years ago. We know what was happening - we have the official timeline - but the Truthers aren't above seriously believing that somebody's recollections after some half decade or more was really a suitable entry into finding another "unexplained fact." I suppose that, years from now, somebody will have an interview where they remember that Gore actually won the Presidency, and this will become another "unexplained fact!" to dazzle the minds in the Truther conspiracy.

in complete and unhindered freefall, inside of 7 hours? It's unprecedented.

not rly

That no other surrounding buildings suffered the same fate is even more unlikely.

Aside from the twin towers, you mean?

The common element in all three building collapses is fire. Other buildings which didn't fall didn't suffer fires. I don't see what's supposed to be mysterious here.

And there's Silverstien's comment of course, which is even more bizarre, but makes perfect sense when you consider the enormous improbability of WTC7 falling like a house of cards all on its lonesome and not some other building that was hit with the same debris.

So a crazy saying. Sayings after the fact don't travel back in time to determine the course of events.

Sorry I don't have time (or the inclination) to deal with the other points you've attempted to Fisk; I think this is really enough to give a clue about a certain kind of analysis which seeks to move beyond "unexplained facts," like the Bermuda Triangle and ghost stories, really. There's nothing unapproachable about these events; they certainly have elements unknown (in greater or lesser degrees) but mostly not so much that they present unsolvable puzzles. Of course there is an element of mystery - in that there are things which remain unanswered - but what of it? It's a fact of life that you don't get perfect answers for everything; at some point you just have to accept that you get as good an answer as is reasonably possible.

Another thing I wonder about is the tenor of all of these "unexplained facts" you're trying to present. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they all happen to have a wildly anti-American government bent of view to them, isn't it? Be honest with yourself: The cottage industry of conspiracy theorists have had decades to build on their narrative. A collection of moments from American history and psuedo-history have collected to combine legitimate and fanciful criticism into a monolith of anti-fact which cheapens and degrades the force and quality of those real tragedies and crimes seen in this nation. And unlike Nazi Germany, we haven't even gotten any good sexploitation film out of it, just a bunch of lame stories about ugly dead aliens.

[Skykid]

How do you mean?

I mean, the capitalist system that we live in is hardly new by this point. It may be at a different, more advanced stage, but the principles on which it is based are the same as ever. Its innards were meticulously analyzed and dissected from different angles more than a century ago which makes your questions seem more than a little strange. The answers to them have been known for quite a while, and none of them dwell in the realm of conspiracy theories.

But... that's exactly what I've been saying.

That these aren't conspiracy theories, but the foundation that causes conspiracy theorists to go nuts and lose the plot. I was simply trying to point out that there are good reasons to ask questions, and to that end CT's at least started on the right track. I do feel like I'm repeating this one time too many.

What's there to discuss? Most of this boils down to the fact that there's a money elite. It neither a secret nor a conspiracy.

Absolutely, I never said capitalism was a conspiracy, although conspiracies certainly exist within the money elite, and that affects your democracy, your media and your governing. So, once again (:deep breath:) these are the reasons conspiracy theorists build on. They start with the right idea (asking questions) and end with the wrong ones (asking the wrong questions, making wild assumptions.)

Which had no water...

Official report says World Trade Center 7's sprinklers were 'out of water'.

I worked in a shitty office for 7 years. Our safety systems/sprinklers/alarms etc were never allowed to be on the blink for more 30 minutes, tops. Can you imagine the scandal were people caught in a simple fire because the sprinklers were out of water? And why were they out of water, had there been a recent fire that had emptied them?

not rly

If you say so. Good luck finding the equivalent.

Aside from the twin towers, you mean?

Here's WTC7 in relation to the North and South Towers, surrounded by Verizon bank and the US post office, neither of which suffered complete annihilation from fires started by falling debris, despite being in an even more critical position to suffer serious damage. Nor were they affected when the dude in the middle dropped like a slinky, kind of out of nowhere.

The common element in all three building collapses is fire. Other buildings which didn't fall didn't suffer fires. I don't see what's supposed to be mysterious here.

Nothing mysterious, just odd it happened to be part of the WTC complex, odd it fell as quickly as it did, and the fashion in which it did, and that it's sprinklers were "out of water". It's also odd that...

So crazy saying. Sayings after the fact don't travel back in time to determine the course of events.

...You write the leaseholder's comments off as "crazy saying." One which he's never retracted or found a way to sidestep, despite pressure.
He said they decided to pull the building. He owned lease, he decided to pull it. To pull it. To drop the fucker. With explosives. On the day of 9/11. In the middle of a catastrophe. Pre-rigged with detonators. Without telling anyone.

Words don't go back to change the course of events, but there's always a possibility they represent the course of events.

Money, capitalism, lies, just as Jon Ingram and Friendly said. 9/11 is a tragedy, even more so because there's more to it than the official accounts let on, and it stinks pretty bad.

[ciox]

9/11 is a tragedy, even more so because there's more to it than the official accounts let on, and it stinks pretty bad.

IIRC this is pretty clear cut, America had long been collaborating with and funding mercenary factions close to Al-Qaeda and through these relationships were tipped off with incomplete information about the planned attacks, this led to their "strange behavior" regarding 9/11 as they appeared to know something but insisted otherwise to avoid seeming incompetent. Very reminiscent of the Boston bombing and how they were tipped off by the Russians but failed to do anything about it, and I'm sure there's more examples like these to be found.

[louisg]

Asking questions is great, but when the alternate explanation requires unlikely coincidences, more people to stay mum and includes parties that are at either at odds with each other or wouldn't benefit to collude, then don't wonder why people would rather buy the official word on the subject-- at least until a reasonable theory can be patched together which would cover those oversights. Another way to think about it: Pretend that the government had offered the alternative theory. Would it still be suspicious? Would there still be fishy unanswered questions?

And god, we'll have people posting about this West Texas thing for years now. IT WAS A MISSILE! WHY, I SAW MY BUDDY'S BARN BURN DOWN AND HE HAD A WHOLE PILE OF MANURE IN THERE AND IT DIDN'T EXPLODE LIKE THAT.

[Ed Oscuro]

SkyKid, I noticed you said "good luck finding that." I think you have forgotten whose project this was. I don't have to find you anything just because you want to revel in ignorance.

And yeah, the official report said the sprinklers didn't have any water available. Laugh all you want, but be glad you weren't working at WTC7 on 9/11.

Your willful idiocy here is staggering. You seriously expect me to be surprised that a sandstone post office and the Verizon Bank, "an art deco building constructed in 1926" didn't catch fire? Or did you just not bother to look into details and hope that your compelling arguments will cause me to bend based on force of personality alone?

If only you'd pull your head out and start reading some things, you might find answers. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Building

The building experienced major damage in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Its thick masonry exterior and use of masonry to protect steel columns and structural elements helped the building withstand the attacks. Restoration of the building after the attacks took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion.

Now please start doing your own damn research. I'm not paid enough for this shit.

90 Church Street, the Church Street Station U.S. Post Office:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_Church_Street
http://postalmuseumblog.si.edu/2011/09/ ... -9-11.html

[Skykid]

SkyKid, I noticed you said "good luck finding that." I think you have forgotten whose project this was. I don't have to find you anything just because you want to revel in ignorance.

I'm not asking you to do the homework, I've already looked into buildings that have collapsed from internal fire. It certainly wasn't a go fetch as much as it was a you won't find an equivalent case. You said "O rly", and it was just another way of saying 'yes, really.'

And god, we'll have people posting about this West Texas thing for years now. IT WAS A MISSILE! WHY, I SAW MY BUDDY'S BARN BURN DOWN AND HE HAD A WHOLE PILE OF MANURE IN THERE AND IT DIDN'T EXPLODE LIKE THAT.

I think the conspiracy theory fad has really exploded in the US, to a greater degree than any other country. The fact that its taken such impressive root is surely to do with a general mistrust of government, which is hardly surprising. As I mentioned several times, it's a shame that CT's ruin perfectly good conjecture with missiles and megalomaniacal banking Jews looking to enslave a global population. Someone somewhere is grateful for the misdirection they cause themselves.

Asking questions is great, but when the alternate explanation requires unlikely coincidences, more people to stay mum and includes parties that are at either at odds with each other or wouldn't benefit to collude, then don't wonder why people would rather buy the official word on the subject-- at least until a reasonable theory can be patched together which would cover those oversights.

I really don't believe I'm alone in saying that I neither believe unlikely coincidences from the CT's camp, or the official line of events. I'm perfectly happy to say, "I don't actually know the truth, but your version of it sounds like shit to me."

Can't see a problem with that stance, I like to think it's rather sensible. For example, had I felt OBL's death was represented with sufficient evidence, I'd have no reason to look at a historical course of events surrounding said individual that's so full of plot holes the only sensible assumption is that it didn't go down how they said it did. I have no evidence (although certain obituaries did surface at one point) but I feel that it's most likely OBL has been dead for over ten years.

[Ed Oscuro]

So what? You're just too lazy to look up the details of (in this example) how steel loses its structural strength (which is necessary to maintain the expected load-bearing capacity of the structure, as engineered), or you don't believe that putting a fire right next to steel will weaken it (that flame retardant spray must be magical stuff - nevermind it was rated for two hours while the actual fire was throughout much of the day), or something else (I don't have all day to spin out the foolish things you could believe in support of these threadbare theories). Literally every answer you have demanded from me is available either in a central Wikipedia article, or in the first page of Google results. Again, I ain't gettin' paid 'nuff.

You want a real, every-day example of how materials can fail? Take a new "Pyrex" pan out of the oven and set it on a cold counter. Old Pyrex will probably just sit there. New Pyrex often shatters from thermal shock. It's different in the mechanism from the failure of structural steel, but the point is that you don't have to melt something to make it break. The only significance Truther morons will perceive in this is that there's a conspiracy to ruin peoples' eyes and dinners.

Professionals, i.e. not armchair-theorizing ignoramuses brandishing "unexplained facts," took two days to release what ultimately turned out to be the correct explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_o ... d_analysis

Does it particularly concern me if we don't hear daily reports about buildings AS TALL AS THE TWIN TOWERS collapsing due to the failure of the structural steel to support dozens of floors above? No, why should it? Will you be surprised at the answer of adding two numbers together if I insist that we can't find any evidence of those numbers having been added together before? Even so, you asked for examples of more building collapses like this, so here you go:
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Stupid or dishonest? I have to assume you're not being dishonest, but that means...oh no!

You really, really need to examine the logical composition of your arguments before trying to burden me with demands for ever-lengthening chains of proofs, when for your lazy conspiracy theories you're more than happy to declare something "smells bad;" something which, quite conveniently, you don't think you can even attempt to research, and you don't try. If you have actually tried to research these things as you say you have, you've done an absolutely horrible job because you repeat tons of obvious errors - even if I have made an error or two in various statements, the sheer volume of them as seen in your posts here is enough to damn any claim to credibility those stories might have. And that's another difference between the way we've been arguing: I don't insist anybody has to be 100% right all the time, but I do expect they have a plausible story. On the other hand, you've been willing to say that the burden of proof for the WTC collapses is different than the burden of proof for the conspiracy theories.

Hey man, how many buildings as tall as the WTC have been brought down by explosives? THAT'S RIGHT, NONE HAVE EVER BEEN DEMOLISHED THAT WAY BEFORE LOL! Guess it couldn't have been explosives then.

[Jonathan Ingram]

I was simply trying to point out that there are good reasons to ask questions, and to that end CT's at least started on the right track.

They don`t start on the right track since, as Ed Oscuro correctly pointed out, they are not interested in the answers to begin with. If we agree that history is governed by objective laws, then we must also agree that a dissection of any action or event requires some manner of systemic approach. But conspiracy theorists reject science and rationale outright and replace them with supposition and fantasies made up entirely just to accommodate their idealistic and irrational view of the world. There`s a damn good reason why so many of these types end up firmly on the far-right.

[Ed Oscuro]

If there is one thing I could blame democracy for, it's for giving people the unwarranted belief that, because many things seem accessible, that the average person looking in on an event can construct the best explanation for what's actually happening. Maybe it's Sherlock Holmes' fault, I don't know.

The conspiracy research is still systematic, but it's systematically biased, in a way that does not respect burdens of proof and which discounts entire classes of evidence. Any slip of the tongue, misremembered memories, plotlines of sci-fi B-movies, mysterious visuals, or things L. Fletcher Prouty said, are the only acceptable forms of evidence.

[Skykid]

Ranting

You gotta chill out Ed. I just said the incident was unprecedented, which is correct, and Silverstein's comment is highly suspicious (also correct) and non-working sprinklers is both a helluva shame and somehow highly dubious.

The temperature that steel melts at is a fact and I'm not disputing it.

I was simply trying to point out that there are good reasons to ask questions, and to that end CT's at least started on the right track.

They don`t start on the right track since, as Ed Oscuro correctly pointed out, they are not interested in the answers to begin with. If we agree that history is governed by objective laws, then we must also agree that a dissection of any action or event requires some manner of systemic approach. But conspiracy theorists reject science and rationale outright and replace them with supposition and fantasies made up entirely just to accommodate their idealistic and irrational view of the world. There`s a damn good reason why so many of these types end up firmly on the far-right.

Sure, I'm with you. I just feel as though the wackiness had to have a beginning, which appears to be due mistrust. That's really all I'm saying. I haven't at one point defended CT's views, I've mentioned several times that it's incredible they got to such lofty heights of improbability.

If there is one thing I could blame democracy for, it's for giving people the unwarranted belief that, because many things seem accessible, that the average person looking in on an event can construct the best explanation for what's actually happening. Maybe it's Sherlock Holmes' fault, I don't know.

But that's precisely the point. The average person can't construct an explanation because there often isn't one: there are too many holes and not enough logic to be comfortable with a definitive answer. Hence, they go nuts and start making answers up, and then compliment each other on their prowess.

This is what we've been discussing for the past few hours.

[Mortificator]

Hypothetical situation: it's 2003. The World Trade Center destruction never happened. The people in control of the US military want it to invade Iraq. Could they do it?

It seems to me that if the answer is "yes," the rationale for a false-flag attack disappears.

[BryanM]

Ergh, that "ignorant CT'er" stereotype. The racist birther stuff is built on a foundation of stupid:

* If one of your parents is USian, then you are one at birth. For birtherism to apply to the real world, they would have to contend the woman said to be his mother wasn't his real mother.

* If being born outside the magical perimeter of the country's domain invalidates you, then McCain would have been right out. And strangely you don't hear about how he's an evil Panamaianan usurper.

Yeah... the "be a nonconformist like the rest of us" conformity train was my biggest disappointment with the CT crowd on the internet. I thought... I thought there'd be more variety...

consider that they could still have alleged a conspiracy, just one that required an attack identical to what we know happened, except that it was instigated in the seat of power in America, rather than by the terrorists.

Yeah. "The administration knew something big was going to happen, they were warned constantly and stood by and let it happen" is terrible enough, and plausible enough.

Sometimes I think some of the conspiracy brahs are astroturf to muddy public opinion. At least some of the entertainers like Jones; just maybe...

I suppose that, years from now, somebody will have an interview where they remember that Gore actually won the Presidency

A full recount under Florida law by the standards set by each county could have ended with Gore up by a margin of +~0.0034%.

To have an election within the margin of error decided by the federal supreme court; peoples don't really get how much of a complete, drat embarrassment it all was. (I guess they think counting votes is like "precision bomb strikes" - some process that's infallible and perfect in the real world. Except, it isn't.)

Shrodinger's president.

(But honestly I think this matter is too Eeyore for even the CT crowd to grasp on. Too altogether grounded in reality, a little too "liberal biased" versus "all government is evil"... I dunno...)

(And fuuuck, this reminded me of the 3000 votes Pat got from the butterfly ballot in that one county. Jesus christ. Gore really did win...... oh, how depressing...)

[Skykid]

Hypothetical situation: it's 2003. The World Trade Center destruction never happened. The people in control of the US military want it to invade Iraq. Could they do it?

It seems to me that if the answer is "yes," the rationale for a false-flag attack disappears.

The answer is no, not without a reason. It's been the US's policy to create reasons for invading countries forever, usually in the name of liberty or something equally non sequitur. Nothing new about that.

[Mortificator]

Indeed, but the primary reason concocted to justify the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein's regime was producing WMDs to attack U.S. interests. In this alternate 2003 where the twin towers are still standing, that would seem to be sufficient. Do you think the armed forces would refuse to deploy, or widespread civil unrest would develop, or the United Nations would censure the United States? How is the war untenable?

[Skykid]

Indeed, but the primary reason concocted to justify the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein's regime was producing WMDs to attack U.S. interests. In this alternate 2003 where the twin towers are still standing, that would seem to be sufficient. Do you think the armed forces would refuse to deploy, or widespread civil unrest would develop, or the United Nations would censure the United States? How is the war untenable?

I never claimed 9/11 was a false flag (how would I know that for sure?) but it served to create enormous public support for a war in the middle east, without the need for the WMD story. I kind of feel like that fiction was created to appease the UN and win sanctions.

Honestly, a large proportion of US people, bless them, didn't actually realise Iraq wasn't tied to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda whatsoever. There was a rather amusing show aired in the UK shortly after Baghdad and its civilians were being carpet bombed, that interviewed random US citizens in the streets of New York, and they were all pretty positive about the whole thing:

"Well this is payback for 9/11, they're getting what they deserve!"

Etc, etc.

[Ed Oscuro]

And unfortunately you've proven my statement at the top of the page completely correct: You don't want my answers. Well, I happen to resent that. You send me on investigative wild goose chases, and this is the thanks I fucking get:

Ranting

You gotta chill out Ed. I just said the incident was unprecedented, which is correct

Stop asking me to give you answers if you won't even read them. The incident is not unprecedented in its important facets. It's "unprecedented," apparently, only in a way that supports your biased process of non-logic: When I point out that nobody had demolished a building like the World Trade Center buildings before, so that the pet theory of controlled demolition must be interpreted with the same skepticism that the fire theory gets from truther communities, apparently that counts for nothing. There's a mountain of evidence and you're just throwing my work back in my face.

Yes, I'm sick and tired of you and other miserable fools shitting on my country because you have a unique prejudice that you won't give up, no matter how ludicrous it might be, and no matter how many ways we point out that if you want to throw out a theory that you need to have a reasonable counter-theory. As I said earlier, I'm not expecting you to have a complete collection of facts, but when all the "unexplained facts" are actually quite easily explained, I don't view that as sufficient. That shouldn't surprise you.

But yeah, just keep using that cool troll facade and you'll earn your keep, no doubt!

The temperature that steel melts at is a fact and I'm not disputing it.

Nobody is saying that the steel melted except truthers trying to straw-man the official description of events. If you don't understand that very fundamental point of the argument then we can't even have a basic discussion about the collapse theories.

"Well this is payback for 9/11, they're getting what they deserve!"

I'm upset with those fools too, but please recognize this is just a diversionary tactic to try to make your unique brands of foolishness look acceptable. A turd still stinks even when it's lined up next to another.

It's not even a reasonable comparison. Sure, these people vote, but I also expect that if you gave many of the people who thought that the facts, and took away their Limbaugh and their bingo club echo chamber or whatever they're getting it from, they'd be amenable to understanding that there wasn't a connection between Iraq and 9/11 - certainly not one that warranted the invasion. I also think it's probably quite likely that, after the years, many of these people have come to understand that wasn't right. Many of the people also consider it not especially relevant to their lives, one way or another, kind of like Sherlock Holmes stating that it's useless for him to know if the sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa. This is quite distinct from saying that they are proud of ignorance or, worse yet, actively going out and defending it vigorously.

I think every single person, especially when they consider themselves learned enough to carry on a conversation, have a duty to themselves and others to try to aim for a higher level of competence than this.