Why People Believe in Conspiracies

[Space Commander Travis]

Not really, one isolated test with marginal success doesn't mean that the system was ready to be covertly fitted to in-service airliners, and a thermite incendiary isn't at all the same thing as a practical column-cutter, which has still to be demonstrated.

Someone has to do all this planning, and I very much doubt if intelligence services normally keep technical specialists on the payroll twiddling their thumbs for years until needed. You can't argue simultaneously that only a few people would be in on the conspiracy and that all the technical specialists are also in on it.

Oh, sorry, you do argue that.

That's the thing; people argue that to take the controls of an airliner and fly it into a target would be such a risk because it wasn't something that could be rehearsed in advance and there are so many things that could have gone wrong; but exactly the same applies to the theory that remote control devices were installed secretly, and control was taken over at just the right moment, and then the planes were flown, flawlessly, into the target. In fact, even more so, since this could not have been rehearsed in advance for real, and uses technology which (at the level of sophistication necessary) had never been tried out for real before (unless we really are expected to imagine that it had been tried out with a few redundant 767s taken out of the storage yards in the desert first - all, of course, in complete secrecy); doing this, with this degree of accuracy, with a 767 is a very different thing from remotely flying a drone, which are small, relatively agile and not very fast.

And, as to the suggestion that those who may have been involved in the project didn't know that that was what the intent behind it was, has not one person who may have been involved in a project involving the remote control of large aircraft, and particularly commercial airliners, not thought about it in the ten years since then and thought "now, I wonder if this might have had something to do with that project I was involved in, and about which I was sworn to secrecy by those men in the dark suits...."? Particularly since it would appear that no other use has been made of the techniques and technology involved since then, so what possible use could it have been intended for?

[Space Commander Travis]

And besides which (I feel like someone in a pub, banging my beer mug on the table), and another thing... what if American or United Airlines had swapped the aircraft scheduled for these flights at the last moment? What then? If N334AA had gone tech at the last moment and another 767 substituted, or N612UA had been switched to another flight to cover for something else? Had several aircraft been equipped with the remote control technology in case of this? If so, was this removed secretly later, and if so by whom? Were AA and UA's maintenance departments in on the plot, or was it done behind their backs? I really don't think that, as often seems to be, these should just be brushed aside with "I don't know all the details", I do think these details are important.

[Q24]

In fact, even more so, since this could not have been rehearsed in advance for real, and uses technology which (at the level of sophistication necessary) had never been tried out for real before (unless we really are expected to imagine that it had been tried out with a few redundant 767s taken out of the storage yards in the desert first - all, of course, in complete secrecy); doing this, with this degree of accuracy, with a 767 is a very different thing from remotely flying a drone, which are small, relatively agile and not very fast.

Bearing in mind there were great big futuristic-looking stealth bombers secretly zipping around the skies for 8-9 years before they were revealed to the public… would some low-profile testing of Boeing compatible remote flight systems at some point before 9/11 really require so much imagination?

We don’t even need to speculate here – remote flight systems, having both civilian and military uses, have been in continuous development and production since the 1950s. That has included use on the Boeing QB-47, the Boeing YQM-94, the Boeing 720 and dozens of other aircraft.

More modern remote systems are generally guided through use of GPS.

The Boeing 757/767 is already equipped with onboard computer/auto-pilot and GPS.

These aircraft can practically fly themselves.

The only addition needed is a transmitter/receiver to connect with a ground station.

And there you have it – a remote control Boeing.

The technology, even by 2001 standards, was completely unremarkable.

There was no requirement for some super-secret test program specific to 9/11.

I think you are fooling yourself into thinking the operation was more complex than it actauly was… this would be another reason why people refuse to believe in conspiracies.

And besides which (I feel like someone in a pub, banging my beer mug on the table), and another thing... what if American or United Airlines had swapped the aircraft scheduled for these flights at the last moment? What then? If N334AA had gone tech at the last moment and another 767 substituted, or N612UA had been switched to another flight to cover for something else? Had several aircraft been equipped with the remote control technology in case of this? If so, was this removed secretly later, and if so by whom? Were AA and UA's maintenance departments in on the plot, or was it done behind their backs? I really don't think that, as often seems to be, these should just be brushed aside with "I don't know all the details", I do think these details are important.

It is currently impossible for anyone to know details like this. Had a thorough investigation, to the standard of normal air crash investigations, been carried out then it would have eventually led to resolution of these questions.

If you want answers then I’d suggest supporting a new investigation to get a meaningful audit and/or identification on the aircraft part serial numbers and all of the aircraft black boxes for starters.

I mean, it’s even up in the air whether the Flight 11 and Flight 175 FDRs were actually recovered or not – some sources say yes and others say no – this is completely unacceptable, not to mention the Flight 77 FDR discrepancies. The 9/11 Commission, NTSB and FBI have utterly failed in their duty here.

No I’m not saying those authorities are ‘in’ on the operation, only that for one reason or another they have not visibly done the necessary to determine the facts and a new investigation would be in the public interest.

Oh… but like anyone else I can still speculate…

The remote equipment would be fitted off-site and this aircraft would be switched with, as per your example, N334AA after take-off – i.e. identity of the original aircraft was not important; the drone was going to take its place regardless.

The operation therefore did not require the knowledge of AA or UA.

Now after all that beer mug banging, I feel like ordering another.

[Habitat]

As JFK might have said, " people choose to believe conspiracy theories, not because they are easy to believe, but because they are hard to believe "

I must say all those panic phone calls from people on those hi-jacked flights to their loved ones about hijackers taking over flights is a poor fit with the remote control theory. But I am sure it can be rationalised away, somehow, some day.

[Q24]

As JFK might have said, " people choose to believe conspiracy theories, not because they are easy to believe, but because they are hard to believe "

I must say all those panic phone calls from people on those hi-jacked flights to their loved ones about hijackers taking over flights is a poor fit with the remote control theory. But I am sure it can be rationalised away, somehow, some day.

The passenger phone calls have been rationalised in various ways for years now…

In July 2001, planning of a NORAD exercise named Amalgam Virgo II was underway. As a point of interest, the earlier Amalgam Virgo I document actually had a picture of bin Laden on the front cover, anyhow... This exercise was a live simulation of plane hijackings using real planes, pilots and passengers (although in this case the passengers involved would be aware it was a simulation).

One of the planes, a Boeing 757, would be ‘hijacked’ by FBI agents posing as terrorists and redirected to a U.S. Air Force Base in Alaska. Most of those involved, the FBI on the ground, FAA, airlines and pilots sent to intercept were kept in the dark about how events in the exercise would unfold. Later, a NORAD spokesman said of the exercise that it was, “very intense, very realistic”.

We know that hijacking exercises were taking place at the exact same time as the 9/11 hijackings. One of the NORAD controllers remarked, “I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.”

The above is all factual information which might reasonably lead to the question - were the 9/11 hijackings in actual fact a part of the exercises taking place that day?

This fits with air steward and passenger communications received from the planes (would even explain what have been pointed out as peculiarities of those calls) and also suggests how the original aircraft were taken out of the loop and switched with the drones.

You can create imaginary problems all day and I can forever provide speculative solutions based on real life precedents… but what we really need is a thorough investigation to determine the conclusive truth.

This would be another reason that people do/don’t believe in ‘conspiracies’ – each is left to draw their own conclusion based only on what they know or prefer to believe because no investigation has taken place to present the adequate facts. And as JFK did say: -

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

What I generally find, is the more someone is informed about 9/11 and all those surrounding events, the more likely they are to doubt the official story. It then appears that ignorance is a large factor in determining whether people do/do not believe in ‘conspiracies’.

I’m sure we would all agree on that from our own perspective either way.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Q24

[Habitat]

I'd say if the conspiracies exist, then the perpetrators truly are the masters of the game and you guys are giving conspiracism a bad name by failing to land a knockout punch. If they're too clever for you, or just maybe aren't on the wrong side of the truth, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel.

[flyingswan]

But I am sure it can be rationalised away, somehow, some day.

As Q24 proceeds to demonstrate. He really is very good at finding reasons for believing what he believes. It's finding evidence that he has problems with.

[Space Commander Travis]

Planes swapped with drones? So the passenegrs on the actual planes were secretly disposed of? Or that the passeneger lists were faked, and these passengers never actually existed? I have to say, sorry, I just find this whole theory incomprehensibly complicated. But yet it's more plausible than that they might have been able to find people, yes, fanatical enough, to be willing to simply take control of ordinary, unmodified and unswitched planes and fly them into the chosen target themselves. I might be willing to give that some credibility; as I've said, there are plenty of questions, but, sorry, not if this theory is insisted on as the only true one. And here, I think, we might have one of the answers to the original question, why do people believe in conspiracies; because they give free rein to the imagination, and allow people, once they decide that whoever the chosen They are (some shadowy agency of the Government, the New World Order or whoever) are capable of any atrocity and have unlimited resources, manpower and technical expertise, and no conscience whatsoever, then they can let their imagination soar to unlimited heights. I think that seems to be the most likely explanation.

[itsnotoutthere]

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

[Stundie]

Glad that you mentioned him.

No problems.

All those leaks and not one conspiracy theory confirmed, must have been a big disappointment to those of your opinion.

Sorry but there were plenty of conspiracies...only one 9/11 related but plenty of others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/september-11-wikileaks/8297069/DEMARCHE-IN-SUPPORT-OF-U.S.CANDIDACY-FOR-IMO.html

Look at that, they manage to keep that one secret until wikileaks uncovers it. Another group of hijackers, kept that one secret didn't they?

Just because Wikileaks doesn't cover it or have any evidence of a cover up or a conspiracy on 9/11, certainly doesn't prove that no cover up or conspiracy happened, unless you stupidly think that wikileaks has hold of every single conspiracy/coverup in it's information?? lol

No wonder you have to make up a new conspiracy theory, as revealed by your "allegedly" word.

I used the word "allegedly" not to make up a new conspiracy as you put it, I used the word because Manning has not been charged yet, so therefore innocent until proven guilty, therefore allegedly.

An innocent word which appears to have flown above your head. lol

[Stundie]

No logical fallacy at all.

Oh but I disagree!!

An actual hijack and suicide attack just involves the attackers themselves, maybe a few extra helpers.

So these few extra helpers couldn't be from the inside then?? lol

Or does it require hundreds of thousands of people on the inside?

An "inside job", however, would require an army of people for everything from demolition set-up to planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington.

That depends on how far you think the conspiracy goes doesn't it?

For instance there are people who believe that 9/11 was possibly an inside job, but don't think the towers were demolished, so obviously for their conspiracy, it doesn't require all these planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington that you are on about does it?

And lets just assume for a minute that the buildings were demolished, then you are employing another logical fallacy that it would require an army of people.

Didn't you ever see what Timothy McVeigh did to the building in Oklahoma? He nearly totalled the entire building, imaging if he had a friend or two with him with trucks? They could have completely flattened that building which was like 8 stories, all in one morning.

So image what a few McVeighs could do the WTC if they had more experience, time and equipment?

Besides, I digress......

Put it simply, if you believe that no explosives were needed and the towers came down, then logically, only one explosives could have been planted and it would have still happened according to your logic, which kind of shoots down the whole, it requires tons of explosives and lots of men, with many days,weeks, months argument down in flames.

[Habitat]

I suppose the 1998 World Trade centre bombing can be woven into the " 9/11 Conspiracy ". Where there's a will, there's a way.

[flyingswan]

Look at that, they manage to keep that one secret until wikileaks uncovers it. Another group of hijackers, kept that one secret didn't they?

Er, what precise conspiracy theory is that supposed to support?

[flyingswan]

For instance there are people who believe that 9/11 was possibly an inside job, but don't think the towers were demolished, so obviously for their conspiracy, it doesn't require all these planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington that you are on about does it?

And lets just assume for a minute that the buildings were demolished, then you are employing another logical fallacy that it would require an army of people.

Didn't you ever see what Timothy McVeigh did to the building in Oklahoma? He nearly totalled the entire building, imaging if he had a friend or two with him with trucks? They could have completely flattened that building which was like 8 stories, all in one morning.

.

.

.

Put it simply, if you believe that no explosives were needed and the towers came down, then logically, only one explosives could have been planted and it would have still happened according to your logic, which kind of shoots down the whole, it requires tons of explosives and lots of men, with many days,weeks, months argument down in flames.

If you have this idea of an "inside job" which is so radically different from most "truthers", I suggest you debate it with them. However, the "inside job" as generally proposed in this forum is considerably different. In particular, such a scheme as you propose means that most of the "evidence" for controlled demolition no longer supports the "inside job" case.

[Stundie]

Er, what precise conspiracy theory is that supposed to support?

Well somebody decided to keep this news quiet didn't they until Wikileaks unburied it? So someone or some people conspired to keep this knowledge from the public domain. Plug in your own theory as to why?

However you did say, "All those leaks and not one conspiracy theory confirmed" when the reality is that there were plenty of conspiracies confirmed....

Cover up of US airstrikes in Yemen

WikiLeaks Exposes Pfizer’s Cover Up Of The Deaths Of Innocent Children

WikiLeaks Reveals Cover Up of Contractor Crimes

There's plenty more conspiracy theories but those few disprove your statement.

[Stundie]

If you have this idea of an "inside job" which is so radically different from most "truthers", I suggest you debate it with them.

But truthers have many different ideas and theories about what happened on 9/11.

Some of them think that no planes hit the towers, some of them do.

Some of them think that the WTC were rigged with explosives, some of them don't.

Some of them think that space beams were used, some of them don't

Some of them think that UA93 was shot down, some of them don't.

These truthers as you label them are individuals, they all have their own thoughts about what or what didn't happen on 9/11, but one thing they all agree on is that the official story doesn't add up.

I don't need to debate it with them because I agree with them that the official story doesn't add up, even if I don't believe it was space beams that destroyed the WTC.

However, the "inside job" as generally proposed in this forum is considerably different.

The word "generally" is where the problem lies, you are generalising.

In particular, such a scheme as you propose means that most of the "evidence" for controlled demolition no longer supports the "inside job" case.

It's a not a scheme, or even a theory and I don't know how you have concluded the ideas that I propose no longer supports the inside job case? lol

What it does is highlight the logical fallacies which are employed and used as reasons to reject a controlled demolition theory. Let me simplify it...

Argument: It requires a large amount of explosives to bring down the WTC?

Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that none were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires a large amount of explosives is invalid.

Argument: It would take too many men to rig the towers with explosives.

Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that no explosives were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires many men is invalid.

Other Logical Fallacy: Arguer (Probably) believes that McVeegh blew up the OKC Building on his own, so one man could plant explosives or a few men in the WTC.

Do you get the point??

[flyingswan]

But truthers have many different ideas and theories about what happened on 9/11.

Which in itself suggests that they are just making things up as they go along, rather than looking at the evidence. They say the official story must be wrong, but they can't agree why. Truthers really do need to get a consistent scenario, rather than arguing different scenarios and accusing each other of being government stooges. To put it mildly, it detracts from their credibility.

It's a not a scheme, or even a theory and I don't know how you have concluded the ideas that I propose no longer supports the inside job case? lol

What it does is highlight the logical fallacies which are employed and used as reasons to reject a controlled demolition theory. Let me simplify it...

Argument: It requires a large amount of explosives to bring down the WTC?

Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that none were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires a large amount of explosives is invalid.

Argument: It would take too many men to rig the towers with explosives.

Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that no explosives were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires many men is invalid.

Other Logical Fallacy: Arguer (Probably) believes that McVeegh blew up the OKC Building on his own, so one man could plant explosives or a few men in the WTC.

Do you get the point??

I see, you are claiming that all the "looks like a conventional controlled demolition, so that's what it was" arguments are wrong, because it was a single explosive charge which would look nothing like what actually happened. If you really think you can replicate the details of the collapses with a single charge, you need to do a lot more explaining than you have so far.

[flyingswan]

Well somebody decided to keep this news quiet didn't they until Wikileaks unburied it? So someone or some people conspired to keep this knowledge from the public domain. Plug in your own theory as to why?

However you did say, "All those leaks and not one conspiracy theory confirmed" when the reality is that there were plenty of conspiracies confirmed....

Cover up of US airstrikes in Yemen

WikiLeaks Exposes Pfizer’s Cover Up Of The Deaths Of Innocent Children

WikiLeaks Reveals Cover Up of Contractor Crimes

There's plenty more conspiracy theories but those few disprove your statement.

Yeah, really big conspiracy theories revealed. They been all over this forum for years - NOT.

You need to learn the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.

Edited March 1, 2011 by flyingswan

[el midgetron]

Which in itself suggests that they are just making things up as they go along, rather than looking at the evidence. They say the official story must be wrong, but they can't agree why. Truthers really do need to get a consistent scenario, rather than arguing different scenarios and accusing each other of being government stooges. To put it mildly, it detracts from their credibility.

Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves. Theres only one person on this planet that I feel the need to agree with.

I think you might have highlighted what faults a percentage of the supporters of the official story. They begin with the belief that they were told the truth about 911 and conform to that belief system without the need for further critical thought or question.

In your own words, you believe agreeing with a consistant idea shared by others is where "credibility" comes from. At that point, whats the need for cognitive thought or evidence to base your views on, or even to use as the basis of the larger idea?

[Faeden]

I simply agree with that. Anything big WOULD be found out. I mean, government officials can't even keep their affairs secret,and those happen between 2 people in a closed room.

You think our politicians are the direct administrators of the conspiracies? They are just moronic puppets with little direct influence in the agenda itself.

Anyway onto my view on this...

I would say an intelligent person should only believe in a conspiracy theory if it becomes a fact and when it becomes the truth. No one should believe in any theory 100% until evidence has been found, or the theory is played out, or is playing out being it is simply that, just a theory.

Some conspiracy theories that were laughed at in the past turned out to be true, so it would also be idiocy to write off every conspiracy theory as hokum just because you have a grudge against "tin hat types" or fear out side of the box thinkers. I am not talking about illogical theories here like the flat earth kind of claims, only ones that can happen in reality, like governmental, war based, fascist, or political conspiracies etc.

[Space Commander Travis]

Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves. Theres only one person on this planet that I feel the need to agree with.

I think you might have highlighted what faults a percentage of the supporters of the official story. They begin with the belief that they were told the truth about 911 and conform to that belief system without the need for further critical thought or question.

In your own words, you believe agreeing with a consistant idea shared by others is where "credibility" comes from. At that point, whats the need for cognitive thought or evidence to base your views on, or even to use as the basis of the larger idea?

I agree with you there, and I do agree that different people having different views is a very healthy thing. However, I do often get the feeling from the pages of this very forum that if you have doubts about the 9/11 Official Version (which, even though this isn't a 9/11 thread, is the one we invariably seem to end up arguing about, it's like Roswell), that isn't enough and you have to go for the whole remote-control-switched-planes-demolition shebang. And that, as i've remarked previously, is what I think perhaps puts people off from wondering about it; if they do have doubts, then they may think they they'd have to put them aside if they can't believe in the whole enormous plot.

[el midgetron]

I agree with you there, and I do agree that different people having different views is a very healthy thing. However, I do often get the feeling from the pages of this very forum that if you have doubts about the 9/11 Official Version (which, even though this isn't a 9/11 thread, is the one we invariably seem to end up arguing about, it's like Roswell), that isn't enough and you have to go for the whole remote-control-switched-planes-demolition shebang. And that, as i've remarked previously, is what I think perhaps puts people off from wondering about it; if they do have doubts, then they may think they they'd have to put them aside if they can't believe in the whole enormous plot.

If there is a consistency in "truthers" that Flyingswan hopes for, its that they are all asking questions. Its that they want answers and don't believe we have been told the truth.

To be honest, I feel like to much discussion is spent on things like controlled demolition and the planes. Its not that I don't think those things have their merits but they all to often end up dominating the conspiracy dialog with details like the melting point of steel. Personally, I would perfer more attention given to things like the words and actions of the administration.

In contrast, I think its usually evidence related to the towers and the planes that causes people to first question 911. It was in my case and it seems to be the focus of alot of the more well known 911 conspiracy films.

I can't say I can relate to your comment about your experience here at UM but... I am from the other side of the debate. Believe it or not, I belong to another forum where my views regarding things (in the conspiracy sphere) have been attacked one more than one occasion as being disinfo or sheeple-ish (I have very fequently seen it happen to others there as well). Yet, here at UM I wear the pants of a full blown nutter... And its not that I think the folks at the other forum are "nuts" but I think alot of them digest things with a foregone conclusion.

In the end, theres always gonna be someone who says you're wrong and they probably won't be very tactful...

Edited March 2, 2011 by el midgetron

[Stundie]

Which in itself suggests that they are just making things up as they go along, rather than looking at the evidence.

No it doesn't! lol

I love how you form these conclusions which are based on nothing more than your preconceived ideas.

What it suggests is that these people are individuals who look at the evidence and form their own opinions.

They say the official story must be wrong, but they can't agree why.

They do AGREE why the official story is wrong, what they do not agree on is an alternative hypothesis.

But they just because they can't agree on an alternative hypothesis and work out how something was exactly done, that doesn't mean the official story is therefore still true.

What a pathetic argument.

Truthers really do need to get a consistent scenario, rather than arguing different scenarios and accusing each other of being government stooges.

No they don't, it's not their job to investigate 9/11. They can have as many different scenarios as they like, but if the original one is proven incorrect, it's still incorrect regardless of how many ideas are suggested, even if they are whacky as you might put it. lol

To put it mildly, it detracts from their credibility.

Even if truthers agreed on a unified theory, they would still receive the same amount of credibility as you give them right now...lol

Which is none! lol

I see, you are claiming that all the "looks like a conventional controlled demolition, so that's what it was" arguments are wrong, because it was a single explosive charge which would look nothing like what actually happened.

Where am I claiming that?? lol

Oh that's right, I'm not, but somehow this is what you are concluding from my argument...lol

Arguments made of strawmen will be burnt down I'm afraid. lol

If you really think you can replicate the details of the collapses with a single charge, you need to do a lot more explaining than you have so far.

And again, I don't recall ever saying this, but hilariously, you have failed to take note of the logical fallacy.

If you can replicate this without a single charge as I'm guessing you think you could, then I do not see why it needs explaining to you that it could also be done with a single 1lb charge of low grade explosive placed in a bin on any random floor, in any random location.

Because according to your logic, the conditions for the collapse have already been met WITHOUT explosives.

So any explosives I add and regardless where I put them, the building still would collapse by your logic.

Unless you think that by adding explosives, that the building would somehow resist collapse now?

[flyingswan]

What it suggests is that these people are individuals who look at the evidence and form their own opinions.

If the "evidence" was consistent one would expect an agreed hypothesis that explained it. The fact that truthers argue among themselves suggests that they are picking which things they like and which things they don't on some other basis than evidence.

They do AGREE why the official story is wrong, what they do not agree on is an alternative hypothesis.

So what is the evidence that the official story is wrong, what is the agreed piece of evidence that falsifys it?

But they just because they can't agree on an alternative hypothesis and work out how something was exactly done, that doesn't mean the official story is therefore still true.

Neither does it disprove the official story.

No they don't, it's not their job to investigate 9/11. They can have as many different scenarios as they like, but if the original one is proven incorrect, it's still incorrect regardless of how many ideas are suggested, even if they are whacky as you might put it. lol

Even if truthers agreed on a unified theory, they would still receive the same amount of credibility as you give them right now...lol

Which is none! lol

Because you haven't shown that the official story is wrong. You all claim that it is, but you argue about why. If there was a "smoking gun", you'd all agree on it.

Oh that's right, I'm not, but somehow this is what you are concluding from my argument...lol

You seem to be claiming that a single explosion could bring down each building, but you don't explain how. Unless you do, your claim is just pointless speculation. It could have been nano thermite, or a death ray, or remote-control airliners or any of the many ways proposed, but "could have been" isn't proof of anything. The official story has a detailed collapse mechanism for each building that fits facts like the observed bowing of the walls of the Towers or the penthouse collapse of WTC7. Any alternative must not just poke holes in this, but also show how it fits these observations.

And again, I don't recall ever saying this, but hilariously, you have failed to take note of the logical fallacy.

If you can replicate this without a single charge as I'm guessing you think you could, then I do not see why it needs explaining to you that it could also be done with a single 1lb charge of low grade explosive placed in a bin on any random floor, in any random location.

If the structures were that near to collapse, you wouldn't need an explosion at all. Either you need a big demolition effort because impact/fire isn't enough, or you accept the official story.

[flyingswan]

Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves. Theres only one person on this planet that I feel the need to agree with.

I think you might have highlighted what faults a percentage of the supporters of the official story. They begin with the belief that they were told the truth about 911 and conform to that belief system without the need for further critical thought or question.

In your own words, you believe agreeing with a consistant idea shared by others is where "credibility" comes from. At that point, whats the need for cognitive thought or evidence to base your views on, or even to use as the basis of the larger idea?

You seem to be completely missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying that people are not entitled to their opinions, I'm saying that if people do not agree about a factual matter then you can look at those facts and see who's idea matches the facts and who doesn't. If there are a lot of different interpretations of a set of facts, then it stands to reason that most of the interpretations are wrong.

It's not agreeing with others that gives an idea credibility, it's agreeing with evidence.

You can argue about whether some course of action is right or wrong and get people who can justifiably have different viewpoints, but if you argue whether an event took place or not, there is only one view that is right.

Edited March 2, 2011 by flyingswan