Hot dicussion of the month! Last Move to top.
The biggest problem with any conspiracy theory is that for any real questions there are a dozen hair-brained ideas as to what happened. No matter what happened on 9/11, the event has become a new Kennedy assassination in the lore of possible conspiracies, with theories ranging from stupidity and a failure of leadership in the face of direct warnings to an Operation Northwoods-type government operation. Those making accusations carry varying levels of credibility, further muddying the waters of the debate.
Kevin Barrett believes the U.S. government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.
These men aren’t uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.
According to polls, some Americans believe in 9/11 conspiracy theory.
With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks quickly approaching, skepticism about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy is strong, as one in three Americans believe officials in the federal government either assisted or took no action to stop the attacks, according to a recent survey. About 36 percent of the 1,010 respondents in a national Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll said that they thought U.S. government officials were involved in the Sept. 11 atrocities because they wanted the U.S. to go to war in the Middle East.
Some accusations come from unusual sources.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York’s Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world’s jihadists.
In ‘Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,’ author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world’s ‘chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Of course, there are also many who dismiss conspiracies. There are a number of people loudly decrying conspiracy theories, so not all the noise is from those thinking the government was behind 9/11.
So what do you think? Ignorance, conspiracy, or terrorist act?
Hal Jordan
You really know nothing of the DMCA or internet laws do you? They can get you IP from the host of this site by court order and then go to your service provider and find you.
Before J here steers the forum into a DMCA rant which many are passionate about, way to go Idaho – put your back into it.
What are ye, provincial or sumthin? All yer gonna find is the internet cafe i was usin yesterday. duh.
OK
J,
You are the one throwing insults around. There is a significant difference between commenting on someone’s opinion and commenting on their character. I have friends who hold opinions they know I feel are stupid, yet we are friends because I do not think that they are stupid.
You insult me personally by mentioning my self-published book as if that has any bearing on this argument or any of the opinions I have in it. If you look, this is a completely neutral post and all of my comments have been about the behavior of the readers.
My book, Cyberchild is openly free for the talking at my website, I take on no airs for being an author. I published my novel to satisfy the muse as I make a good living in my day job. I’d take the money if there was any in publishing today, but I’d rather have readers than sales.
Speaking of my day job, as an editor I do know enough about the language to handle your comments.
The wierdest thing about all of this is that you are attacking me for nothing. Nothing related to this post, anyway. Why are you are defending the right to call someone you disagree with an idiot, anyway?
When I posted my paraphrase of Heinlein’s “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”, I referred to no one. I was chiding, yes, but I was chiding the group, not you or any specific reader. I did not address you until you addressed me first.
You are the one that made it personal, why? Do you think it makes you look smarter? Who is the one trying to look superior here? Do you think insulting me makes your position (frankly, I don’t even remember which point you were arguing anyway) better?
As the blogger who posted this item, I have been trying to keep people on the discussion. Calling someone an idiot does nothing to further a conversation.
Smartly
Again I never called anyone an idiot in this debate! NOT ONCE!
You insult me be questioning my ability to differentiate between a adjective and a noun. You seemed quite secure in your superior stance by making that statement. I derived that you felt that way because you self-published a book. I found that offensive. I apologize if I upset you.
You claim to “know enough about the language”. Then why is it you think that an insult has any relevance to whether it is in the form of a noun or adjective? I understand your previous excuse of attacking performance vs. character and I argue that attacking a persons performance is attacking their character. How one performs is a marker of their character.
You thought you would play semantics and get away with insulting people while you chastised them for doing the same. That is hypocrisy. I despise hypocrisy.
As far as the original issue of the blogg…….That was dead a long time ago. The people on the conspiracy side refuse to use any logic, fact, reason or evidence to defend their stance. The others time after time have presented answers to their questions and provide valid evidence. They, for the most part, were using reason and logic. After numerous posts they made astute observations and labeled certain people to be idiots.
I defend their right to do that. It wasn’t just name calling for the lack of an argument.
Again I never called anyone an idiot in this debate! NOT ONCE!
I really am sorry I made it personal but you did come off as a smug prick. I guess it is the informal nature of the blogg. Again I am sorry.
“Just because something is logical, reasonable, and factual does not make it correct or true.
Did you even look up the definition of correct? I think you will find that it indeed does. The very definition proves me right.
correct 2. conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth
Truth, as I said before, is subjective. We all have our own truths. They do not and are not require to conform with fact.
It is really pointless for you to continue on this issue because you are simply wrong. A 20 sec look up in a dictionary would have told you that your statement was completely idiotic! You too are trying to play semantics and failing miserably at it! At least Smartalix was good at it!
“To denigrate someone for their opinion without providing any proof that their position is wrong only shows you lost the argument. ”
Are you kidding? There was plenty proof!!!! I don’t think Frank was judging them on their opinion. It appeared to me that he was judging them for not being able to comprehend the mounds of facts and evidence that were explained well enough for a chip to grasp. Again I NEVER CALLED ANYONE AN IDIOT DURING THIS DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“You suggested that if someone were to call you an idiot you might realize the fallacy of your point. I guess not.”
Nice try! That is not what I suggested. You just don’t comprehend my point as proven by the beginning of your post! What I said was “I think being called an idiot might wake ME up to the realization that I am being perceived as less than intelligent. Maybe then I would question…”Does what I am saying even make sense?”
I thought about whether I was being perceived that way fairly by you. I concluded that I was not. I evaluated what I said. I concluded it does make sense. I am not the most skilled at expressing myself so perhaps it is my fault you do not understand. I can’t help you with that obviously
“Intertel, hhmmm and what does that have to do with anything?”
You were questioning my intelligence and I was informing you that would not be a fruitful path for you to follow. Nothing more. As far as your links NO NO and NO.
“I am always skeptical whenever someone boasts of their intelligence or experience in order to prove superiority in a discussion”
I wasn’t doing that. I was merely defending myself. Believe what you want. It is apparent you do that anyway regardless of the facts.
“From past discussions, most of the people disagreeing with me on this have shown themselves to be very intelligent”
I am sure they have appeared that way to you.
I can think of many reasons why our government would want to destroy the WTC, but I’ll just state one; to simply to set things in motion. Things that have been planned and forecast for yearts. It’s called a roadmap. What, governments don’t have roadmaps? It’s a lot easier to pass laws and change world dynamics when a major affront against a country takes place. Enter 9/11.
Now, I said the above, but I am not saying there is a conspiracy. A conspiracy here is possible. Maybe even probable.
The better “conspiracy” is that our government took advantage of the American tragedy by using it as momentum to create laws that gave all our government agencies greater powers. Greater powers that the New World Order would need in order to rule for the next 100 years, even in the face of Chinese and Indian economic explosions.
Also…
People who denounce any observation or “conspiracy” simply because they believe what they are told wholeheartedly should be ashamed of themselves. They really should.
C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aY1W5xETBU
Smartalix: You badly need a graphic designer for your book cover. But thank you for the free download. will be reading it later.
Conspiracy Fact: The Bush Administration Planned 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDY6LIKZmIA
259 That is exactly why no one should believe any part of your conspiracy stories. If you have something that is backed by solid evidence of the quality that supports the current 9/11 conclusions, maybe things would be different.
RBG
9/11 Was an Inside Job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EymYwYc43iE
Nobody investigated about the 9/11 deaths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist. Get your faces off the prisoners’ asses and smell the excrement stateside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
Wuh… wah.. uh… yeah.
After listening to Halifaxion, I am even more convinced that 9/11 conspiracy theories are balderdash. This bozo somehow thinks that Cheney organized something that would take *armies* of people to pull off *and* conceal. Of course it helps when Cheney has a command and control center that has the ability to “shut off everyone’s radar.” Riiiighht…
With a little more troll bait, I bet we top 300!
Wuh… wah.. uh… yawn.
How about the IDEA…
That the World trade building was a mistake…??
WTB is NOT the WTO…
And its only USE, long ago, was as a terrestrial based Antenna, for spies.
ok this is simple, people who think that 9/11 was a plot have evidence or enough evidence to suggest something isnt right. those that dont believe it is a conspiracy just use insulting remarks and just say it didnt happen because it didnt but dont really offer any facts to justify why not. if anyone knows of any sites that do offer the otherside of the coin please post it im stuggling to find one. anyway i aint gonna say it was or was’nt a conspiracy. im just want to say that 9/11 was an act that was cowardly and disgraceful, not matter who commited it, and the dead from that day deserve justice as do there familys they also deserve truth. however it is obvious from evidence there were a few contridictions and untruths in the original story, example pentagon saying they had no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon to later change that to a grainy time elapsed video capture being realesed, to think thats all they had to offer was a joke i think my local shop has better cctv security than the pentagon;\. being told that wtc7 collapsed because of fire to then be told by the owner of the building he told them to pull it. theres other stuff to but i aint gonna go on all day. problem is what is true and whats not? this is how conspiracys are strenghted not disproved. when the truth isnt given or the story is changed it is human nature to question it, or at least thats what i use to think before reading some forums they may as well make it illegal to question a govement story and take away our rights even if its proved they are lieing about certain facts. if your supervisor told you one story at work then your friend a differant story obviously thats just you being paranoid as hes your supervisor and would never lie to you;\. and yet it could all be settled if only they reinvestigate what happened on 9/11 again with adequate funding and no interferance from the goverment so that they carnt be accused of any wrong doing again. and all those who think 9/11 wasnt a conspiracy will also welcome the investigation to shut up the conspiracys theorys and the goverment will have nothing to worry about becuase they know that they did no wrong doing. so logical yet it dosnt happen which in its self rings alarm bells. before anyone says it was investigated the first time, it was apparntley underfunded and and interfered with, there are also claims the evidence was removed from the site before investigators could examine it, if true that is dodgy. but again it is why a new inquiry is needed to settle it once and for all.
> people who think that 9/11 was a plot have
> evidence or enough evidence to suggest something isnt
> right.
No they don’t which is the whole problem with the conspirarcy theories. All of the evidence is purely circumstantial and there is no evidence that points to the actual conspirators planning and/or implementing their nefarious plot.
ah i see theres just no evidence if thats how igronace works ill give it a go then i dont have to worry my ass off living in times of scare mongering goverments, illegal wars and corrupt political figures. theres a saying igronace is bliss, its so true all the problems go away. we can argue till the cows come home about the facts and evidence, but when the population is split on any issue it makes sense to investigate the claims and to lay to rest the theorys, its not like its a small percentage that think it, i myself am not sure if it was or was’nt a plot but even i can see there is enough grounds to warrent another inquiry to explain away in more detail exactly what happened or did’nt happen on 9/11. the guy who owned the building of wtc7 was caught on tape saying he ordered them to pull it , it takes a long time to plan that sort of thing weeks or months, not a day and while the building was on fire ;\. maybe im just obviously being paranoid theres obviously no grounds so ill go back to being igronant and pretend that theres nothing wrong here. praise president bush and the rest of them god bless america. everything you stand for has been taken away. the dream has turned to nightmares. dont bother replying i know theres no evidence no grounds and its all the terrorists fault that live where all the oil is, thank god my countires energy supplies are running out or we could find ourselves being the target to. by the way its iran next another oil rich country but obviously thats just circumstantial.
sorry for my ongoing remarks, but if you believe it or dont this issue is very important to world right now, becuase of its significance not just to the event that happened on that day but also to events that have happened since and even now. people keep linking web pages to prove that it did happen and was a conspiracy or didnt happen and was’nt a conspiracy, how do you believe anything when one page says that this is why the buildings fell and another says that they fell for differant reasons to that. who is lieing? whos version is true? it still dos’nt settle the debate, both sides have expert opinion and both sides have good grounds to suggest there right, but only on certain things. did it never cross anyone’s minds that both sides may be right, but at the same time both side may be wrong? could it be that only certain evidence can be proved or disproved. whatever i could,nt give a crap ive said it before im unsure what to believe, however am certain there are facts that are being ignored and not answered unless that person is being called a name to imply he/she is a dimwit. everything i read and everything i see just drives it home to me that reinvestigating and explain questions and claims raised is the only way to seperate fact from fantasy, reading one website proves nothing there just the same as everyone in here some believe conspiracy some dont , some experts believe its a conspiracy some dont, everyone is split. people also point out that people think alot of stuff in history where conspiracys (jfk ect.). there is also a lot of stuff from history that people dont believe is conspiracy but this isnt mentioned. the london bombings gave me no reason to doubt anything as the story and events didnt raise any untruths or change of story or any type of suspious activity before or after the attack. could that be because it was truth and no facts were hidden? 9/11 on other hand although a bigger attack, has so many doubters, ive never heard of a conspiracy of the london bombings since it happen. REINVESTIGATE 9/11. its the only way!
steel does indeed lose its strenght when heated however how does steel lose its strenght when not heated or stuck by a plane? wtc1 was hit almost at the top of the building, yet the whole building came crashing down to ground level in 10 seconds after only 2 hours. hard to believe the 100% strength portion of the builing which was around 80% of it crumbled so easy, i mean all that strain of the top 10-20% must of been to much for it after holding it up for decades. even on fire i carnt understand how it weighed anymore to the unaffected part of the building, add the plane deducte the materials burnt off , yes maybe the top portion would of collapse or fell off. but i carnt see how the whole building hit the ground in 10 seconds. when a large portion of the building was uneffected. if it was pancaked then surely it would of took longer than 10sec to hit the ground as the strenght of the lower portion would of slowed the collapse down or bought to an alt after a few floors or more, remember this building held that weight before, are we suggesting that somehow the builing could not cope with the weight of the top few floors? because the fire burnt off some of the weight. does anyone know if pancaking throws out material from the outer walls or if it pulls the outer walls inwards? ive never seen a whole builing fall from the top down ever so please but gentle with me but if anyone can tell me why this would happen in 10 seconds please say as im unsure what to believe but am waiting to be convinced certain things are not strange at least. remeber the builing was huge so 10 seconds on that scale is very very fast. and that 80% of the stucture was still 100% strong with the same weight on top plus the plane minus materials burnt off. i thought the only part of the stucture to be weaken or lose strenght would be the small portion on fire? if im wrong please say. im looking information big time that explains my questions.
yes i have a lot to say and have never had the courage to say what i think or suggest theres was anything strange about 9/11, it took me a long time to even take anything into consideration about 9/11 all i could think of was those poor people for years. just want to mention wtc2 so you don’t ask why i didnt mention it above, i can not believe wtc2 collapsed fully on it own accord, as it was stuck roughly halfway down leaving the impact wall, and a side wall with holes due to the angle of the impact. so if the steel was weakened by the heat, when the building collapsed the weight coming down on the portion that was 100% sound would of been much greater than with wtc1. it is possible therefore that the weight of almost half a building landing on the bottom section may of indeed done extensive damage to below the the impact zone. however i am unsure if that would of caused the whole of the builing to fall as the same principles still stand as with my comments about wtc1, would the fact that it was hit half way down roughly, and across 2 walls not make it more likely that it would of tilted and fell rather than fall inwards, infact i think it did tilt first then straightens itself and fell inwards with the rest of the building. only question here is how does gravity correct the buildings fall from a tilt to a pancake. do i need to go back to school to re learn pyshics? and gravity? or is that the problem here? could it be that the school systems are letting down the genral public and misleading us about gravity and how buildings fall (new conspiracy lol), or was the lore reinvented just for 9/11? tilt means that one side of the building has given way (failed) or been weakened enough not to hold the the weight above so strats to lean towards the side with damage. which means the tilted portion would of put less strain on the opposite side, to correct the tilt needs something else to happen on the opposite side to the tilt to level it out again, or it will just continue to lean and fall off as the weight of the the portion that tilted would of took over and gravity would of come into play. so what made the top portion tilt then come back and fall in? please explain. if these questions can be answered without insults in a logical way you would of put to rest the explosions (that i am unsure about). so many reported hearing explosions on radio and t.v on that day , please prove they were mistaken. or with insults in a logical way is fine ;\. before anyone says i have conspiracy theorys your wrong these are just questions i asked myself as i see it. which means im not understanding something here. or somethings is’nt right with the way they fell. i also didnt invent any footage i see and dont even need to be on a site that thinks theres a conspiracy for me to ask these questions, there just there all time no matter where you see it. and i carnt believe no one asks how the parts not on fire collapse to dust especially with wtc1 having an imapct zone a lot higher up.
the explantion for this im sure ill be told, is that it was fire. if so how come wtc1 didnt collapse first it was burning for a longer amount of time than wtc2.
For umpteenth million time, everything you have mentioned has simpler and more plausible explanations that have been provided to conspiracy theorists on countless occasions. Explanations as to how the towers fell, how WTC7 fell, the “pull” comment have all been explained. Regardless, none of it points to a conspiracy. Where is the evidence of the conspiracy itself? Where is the evidence that irrefutably points to actual people planning or implementing their plot? Nothing but conjecture and circumstantial evidence has ever been provided to this end. Until someone provides some solid evidence that implicates actual and specific people conspiracy theories will never be taken seriously.
ah you mean the evidence that said they fell due to fire? or did they change there story again? if they fell to fire why the hell did the wtc2 fall before wtc1, wtc2 burns for 1 hour and falls wtc1 burns for 2 hours and falls. wtc7 burns all day then falls . what planet do people live on. omg i know im no expert but omg people actually believe steel structure fall after burning for such a short peroid. no sorry not fall, crumble all the way to floor level. ok maybe im wrong then please excuse me while i resit physics and common sense. they made that builing to with stand an airliner crashing into it, that has to be the worse design i have ever known of any building, wtc2 lasted bearly an hour. it has to go down as the worse design floor in history it didnt even come close to do what it was suppoes to do, id be very worried if i lived in a high rise building. i suppose the designers and other people who built it didnt have a clue, im now wondering how it stayed standing during the previous attack on the wtc. never mind my questions are answered now. i realise now that it could not of been anything other than fire on a few floors. wtc7 had a better design because that lasted from around 9ish in the morning all the way up to 5.30ish in the evening, wtc7 was made with super steel compared to the two towers. and to think they are still the only steel structures to ever fall due to fire, who the hell built them? the record for 1st 2nd and 3rd fall of a steel stucture due to fire all happen on the same day, crap your right its all circumstantial. and names will never be mentioned becuase they will not do a reinvestigtion with proper funding and no interferance, and thats all everyone that thinks it was a plot is asking for.
ive said all i want to say about this matter, im still not sure what to believe even though i ask questions. dos’nt mean i think it was a goverment plot by raising the questions that i ask, it just means i am not covinced that all the facts are known or been investigated or have been completly ignored. where did i say it was a conspiracy? i’ve just been looking at footage posted by sites in general of the events of 9/11 that are known to of happened as and questioned them. if i wanted to imply it was a conspiracy i would of told you to view a clip of the fireman telling his workmates to clear the area theres a bomb, but although that clip seems real and at the time of 9/11 i carnt be sure if it was staged or from the previous attack on the wtc where bombs where planted in the car park underneath the wtc. just incase your intreasted it was on the yahoo section. although i dont know the exact address as im typing this and car’nt check without having to re-write this;\.
sorry it was not yahoo it was google, address http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603 . that should take you there but you then need to search through the clips to see it, just so you know i am not lieing and that its not a stupid conspiracy i cooked up. and the words he says came out of his mouth not mine. however im not sure if its from 9/11 although its seems to be. you judge, im unsure.
sorry saw something that is dodgy, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6299290782445010141 . these clips are edited clips from differant networks put into one to show the events of 9/11. im getting more confused by the minute, but was that something being launched by the 2nd plane as it approached? it only shows up on the nbc news clips this is so confusing;\. whats going off. i dont know if to be scared because it was real or scared because it was actually added. do i believe what i saw? or could there be people adding stuff to make the case stronger for conspiracy;\ is it edited or real.
if you do watch that plane clip please note the large hole that has now appeared on wtc1 on the opposite side and a lot lower down just as plane 2 impacts with wtc2. there may be an explanation but just thought id point it out as it seems well below the orignal impact zone on wtc1.
i heard bush got told of today for intercepting phone line communications without even applying for warrents. if this is not a good example of how they use terror to take away human rights whats is. if it was of such importance to intercept these phone calls then why not apply for warrents, do laws only apply to everyone barring the bush administration. you’ve been warned by lots of people about whats happening, what ever happens from now and in the future the word terror will be used to obtain it, even when taking away human rights. and noone will even question it because terror is always used as the reason.