[BrucePrime]

Quote

Why is it so hard to even consider that your government may have orchestrated the thing?

Because it does not stand up to the scrutiny of critical thinking. 9/11 conspiracy theories rely on bad-science, half-truths, and quote-mining. Plus, the number of people that would have to be involved is staggering; this is a government that cannot keep simple terrorism surveillance or "secret prisons" secret, yet not a single credible person has come forward, no one who can stand up to the test of scrutiny. You want to believe a government that could orchestrate 9/11 and could convince other governments that terrorists were behind it would let itself get embarassed by not finding the WMDs in Iraq? You also want to believe a government that could pull off a 9/11 style attack, cover up its involvement, would leave behind enough evidence that some putz with a camcorder and an Amiga could "put the pieces together"?

Ultimately, the belief in these conspiracies is a belief of cowards, laziness, and arrogance. The belief in an all-powerful government controlling everything excuses you from having to get off your lazy duff and try to change things, excuses you from having control over your life. "It's the government's fault." It is an intellectual laziness combined with an grand degree of arrogance. Not only are some putz on the internet able to figure out things that the greatest minds in science and media were not able to figure out, but once you believe in such conspiracies, you excuse yourself from doing any mental exercise to maintain your belief in the conspiracy. Any evidence to the contrary you dismiss out of hand as being part of the conspiracy.

[vampiresan]

Sorry but i believe in 9/11 conspiresy 'cause i defently don't think it was the terrists if so why did bush let them leave the country save and sounded?

[BrucePrime]

Quote

Sorry but i believe in 9/11 conspiresy 'cause i defently don't think it was the terrists if so why did bush let them leave the country save and sounded?

What in the world are you talking about?

[lyoung347]

Quote

9/11 conspiracy theories rely on bad-science, half-truths, and quote-mining

Could you possibly share some examples of this?

Quote

yet not a single credible person has come forward

SunofOne has a pretty extensive Whistle-Blowers thread I think you should Read
http://www.unexplain...showtopic=36598

[chris0871]

If the audio in this film is correct how can you say those buildings were not blown to kingdom come.


http://video.google....8...h&plindex=9


But were there explosions that were captured over two miles away?

What about these rummbles ? could the sound waves travel across the river to Richard Segals camera that day?

http://www.youtube.c...ead301583%2Fpg1

The more I listen to the sounds on Richard Segals camera and more video evidence comes out at ground zero of clear audio of huge explosions I don't have any doubt that those sounds registard on the camera two miles away are indeed authentic and very real before those towers came down.

That wasen't thunder in the background or steel hitting steel those were bombs.

The house of cards is an the verge of collapse.

[badeskov]

Quote

Quote

9/11 conspiracy theories rely on bad-science, half-truths, and quote-mining

Could you possibly share some examples of this?

Please take the time and read through some of the older threads here...or elsewhere, they are full of examples. But for the sake of illustration, lets just take a few - like from the movie clip Chris0871 linked to in the post after yours. At 36 seconds the narrator describes how the collapses does not follow Newton's 3 laws of motion and should have fallen into the street in 1 piece!!! I am sorry, but I had to listen to that part a few times to convince myself he actually said that.

This is a typical example of somebody trying to be scientific and convincing, leaning against Newton's laws. Unfortunately, the narrator shows a blatant lack of basic physics skills and have no idea of how such a building should behave. This is not even a half-truth and not even science - but it sounds great (scientific).

Same with the sound of 'explosions' in the same clip. How is this sound identified as explosions? Could it be the internal structure of the building collapsing? Yes, it could and is. Again, jumping to conclusions based on bad science and half-truths.

And the examples are numerous. Like directed energy weapons were used (absolutely ludicrous; sounds great, but also shows a complete lack of knowledge of physics).

The fires didn't burn hot enough to weaken the structure. Well, the fire burnt hot, but maybe not hot enough to weaken the structure if it was intact. But a good amount of the support pillars had been damaged or ripped over and the fireproofing shaken off at the same time.

Or, how about the pentagon. From loose change: we see footage from a cctv at the outside and in no frame is the plane observed. Just the explosion; alas, no plane could have been responsible. But nowhere is it mentioned that said camera only took one frame per second, so obviously it didn't see a plane traveling 400+ feet per second. What kind of half truth is that?

And I think we could go on and on, but I won't really spend more time on that. Just take a look at what some people put forth and what the experts are saying. And to that end, I can recommend flyingswan's post, where he links to an excellent peer reviewed paper on the collapse.

Best,
Badeskov

This post has been edited by badeskov: 13 September 2007 - 06:16 PM

[Lilly]

Quote

....This is a typical example of somebody trying to be scientific and convincing, leaning against Newton's laws. Unfortunately, the narrator shows a blatant lack of basic physics skills and have no idea of how such a building should behave. This is not even a half-truth and not even science - but it sounds great (scientific).

Interesting how this same sort of thing appears in various conspiracy driven notions. From the moon landing hoax to Icke's reptilian humanoids, one finds a blatant lack of basic science at the forefront of all this nonsense. Leaves me wondering if science is any longer a mandatory part of basic education?

[badeskov]

Quote

Interesting how this same sort of thing appears in various conspiracy driven notions. From the moon landing hoax to Icke's reptilian humanoids, one finds a blatant lack of basic science at the forefront of all this nonsense.

Well, I guess such is the backbone of the various conspiracy theories. Imagine if basic science was put to work (oh, horror, what a thought); then again, I guess it would be the end of conspiracies as we see them here.

Quote

Leaves me wondering if science is any longer a mandatory part of basic education?

I think it is, but without the emphasis it apparently needs. Also, with everybody being online and online discussion forums like this proliferating, I also do think we see a lot of people creeping out of the woodwork that we otherwise wouldn't have seen

Best,
Badeskov

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

yeah I watched the video and what is this guys proof from his dumb comments edited in at the bottom? He does no debunking except continuously saying "wheres the connect"? Obviously the connection is that the northwoods project would fit this scenerio perfectly you noob!!!!

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

wow watching more of the lolloosechange is so ridiculous, he is not debunking he is adding his opinion from what is on the screen. What a waste of time.

[Sunofone]

Quote

Because it does not stand up to the scrutiny of critical thinking.

really?? i guess you will have no problem then finding a scholar that has refuted the byu physics prof 48 page anaysis concluding that the use of explosives was absolutely necessary in order to create the collapses witnesed as well as much of the physical evidence like molten steel,sulfer laden iron micr spheres and the pulveration of a majority of the mass of the building-- c'mon now you spoke a big game there boy lets see you back it up with something OTHER than conjecture-- im not asking you to personally refute it as im sure your credentials are nowhere near that of prof jones but at least locate one scholar that has or you can keep your mouth closed about critical thinking and intellectual laziness as it will be your fragile psyce that you are fostering when you choose to give up

[momentarylapseofreason]

Quote

take a look at this and tell me there was no airliner

http://www.911myths....7_wreckage.html

How do we know these pics were really taken shortly after the crash ?

And WHY wont they release the surveillance videos from that time ?

Look at this again WHAT ARE THEY HIDING ???

Bush, Cheney Prepare for 9/11 Questioning

By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A08

President Bush has met with White House aides and has been consulting with Vice President Cheney in preparation for Bush and Cheney's appearance before the Sept. 11 commission tomorrow morning, administration officials said yesterday.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush's aides have decided not to allow a recording or make a transcription of the appearance, in part because of the classified information that will be discussed. The 10-member commission will be allowed to have one staff member present to take notes.


The decision, following a practice President Ronald Reagan used in 1987 when appearing before a commission probing the Iran-contra matter, removes the possibility that the transcript would become a political issue and precludes any subpoena.

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and another lawyer from the counsel's office, who will take notes, will appear with Bush and Cheney, officials said. Commission interviews with former president Bill Clinton and vice president Al Gore were taped, but not all of the more than 1,000 other interviewees agreed to recordings, officials said.

The great care being taken by the White House -- it has required that the two men appear jointly, in private, and not be under oath -- reflects the political and governmental significance of tomorrow's meeting. The White House originally sought to limit the time of questioning and number of questioners. Bush has so far weathered the inquiry well, according to public opinion polls.

His appearance with Cheney is one of the last major steps the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is taking before it issues a report this summer in the midst of the presidential campaign.

Bush and Cheney have done joint preparation, some of it by phone, according to a senior administration official. Bush has also been preparing for his testimony with Gonzales, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. "I expect he will continue to visit with those individuals over the next couple of days," McClellan said. "And the counsel's office provided him some materials from that time period to look over. And he will continue to look over some of those documents from that time period to refresh his memory."


http://www.washingto...anguage=printer


Gonzales is another "buddy" Bush hired on because he got him out of a DUI once.

This post has been edited by momentarylapseofreason: 17 September 2007 - 09:33 PM

[The-Doctor]

Quote

How do we know these pics were really taken shortly after the crash ?

And WHY wont they release the surveillance videos from that time ?

Look at this again WHAT ARE THEY HIDING ???

This is another case of the conspiracy theorist state of mind. Apparently, because you don't have proof that the pictures were taken immediately after the crash, you assume that all the pictures are fake. Well you know, I don't have proof that Greenland is real either. I've never been there, I don't know anyone who's been there, and we have no proof that it wasn't drawn on the maps on purpose to hide the real secret. Satellite photos, videos, all could have been faked, orchestrated by the governments of the world.

Is that the type of logical thinking we should all have?

I challenge anyone to tell me EXACTLY what kind of proof they would need to convince them that the 9/11 attacks were NOT an "inside job."

[momentarylapseofreason]

Quote

This is another case of the conspiracy theorist state of mind. Apparently, because you don't have proof that the pictures were taken immediately after the crash, you assume that all the pictures are fake. Well you know, I don't have proof that Greenland is real either. I've never been there, I don't know anyone who's been there, and we have no proof that it wasn't drawn on the maps on purpose to hide the real secret. Satellite photos, videos, all could have been faked, orchestrated by the governments of the world.

Is that the type of logical thinking we should all have?

I challenge anyone to tell me EXACTLY what kind of proof they would need to convince them that the 9/11 attacks were NOT an "inside job."

Your'e assuming that I'm assuming.................... I'm at 50/50 right now.
But sure don't trust the "Bushmonkey"

[momentarylapseofreason]

Quote

This is another case of the conspiracy theorist state of mind. Apparently, because you don't have proof that the pictures were taken immediately after the crash, you assume that all the pictures are fake. Well you know, I don't have proof that Greenland is real either. I've never been there, I don't know anyone who's been there, and we have no proof that it wasn't drawn on the maps on purpose to hide the real secret. Satellite photos, videos, all could have been faked, orchestrated by the governments of the world.

Is that the type of logical thinking we should all have?

I challenge anyone to tell me EXACTLY what kind of proof they would need to convince them that the 9/11 attacks were NOT an "inside job."

Oops just noticed you didn't answer my questions.
If you can't ,can someone else give me a good answer ? Pretty please with a "real" cherry on top ?!