9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I found this while researching another topic, but it refutes all the Conspiracy Theories:
Do not believe the junk on the web regarding Bush attacking the USA. The neocon would never cause an attack the would cripple the economy.

popularmechanics.com/science … 30517.html
questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

From another blog:
museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/foru … /269/P180/
A child can tell you: the question of how a building fell down can be resolved ONLY by engineers. Not physicists, theologians, or guys who just think they’re the smartest guy in the world. It has to be engineers.

Absolutely NO ENGINEERS back up the conspiratorial fantasy about 9/11. On the contrary, they have utterly debunked any theories:

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or “controlled demolition?”
fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fi … alysis.pdf
firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fi … alysis.pdf
members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was “pulled” down intentionally by some official order?
tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 … -0112.html

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
asce.org/responds/

More information:
architecture.about.com/library/w … llapse.htm
icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
enr.construction.com/news/buildi … 021104.asp
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 … -0112.html
civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 … -0112.html
civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
space.com/scienceastronomy/gener … 10919.html
teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/e … /collapse/
mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm

Listen to the experts, not the conspiracy theorists folks.

Go ahead and hate Bush if you want, but do not allow your rage to warp your reason.

With regards,

aspacia :sunglasses:

2

Random to the max!

No one can be exactly sure on much of anything. But in the end what does it matter? What is done is done. People act like 9/11 is the first time in the world people have been killed by others.

3

19 fanatical Muslims crash two planes into two high rise buildings and a third into the Pentagon, despite the US air defences having ample time and resources to stop them, producing near-identical straight-down collapses that exhibit all the characteristics of controlled demolition? That’s a conspiracy theory.

I don’t believe the conspiracy theory nuts. That includes the writers of the official story. No engineer in the world can explain how the same fire can melt/significantly weaken steel yet not burn a paper passport.

I’ll come back to this in greater detail, but there’s a lot of evidence being overlooked in the above links/post.

4

Perhaps it’s none of my business, what with me not being
american. But I believe all three buildings WERE pulled [see below]
physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I believe these ‘self destruct’ thermite devices were placed in the
buildings as a ‘safety’ measure. So that if their [the buildings]
structural integrity were ever weakened by a terrorist attack, they
would be able to ‘bring them down’ in a controlled manner.

If one of these ‘thermite devices’ was accidentally ignited by the
plane crash, then they would have been left with no choice other
than to deliberately set off the remaining ones, to stop the building
coming down at an angle, and causing even more loss of life.

P.S. - You might say “So what… there’s was only one little stream
of molten iron seen !!”… Aaah yes, but there would have been
many more flowing down the centre of the building.

Also, any link with “.gov” in the URL cannot be trusted on this
matter.

5

Fema,
wtc organization
Popular mechanics…

:unamused:

Aspacia it’s absolutist thinking like that which will get us into trouble. What kind of advice is that? Listen to the experts and they are ‘truth’ – well what makes an expert? Someone who has certain credentials? Someone who has been paid to talk about certain things?

Let’s get wacky here --something i’m not normally known for-- but let’s just assume for a second that Bush was behind everything. Ok, he used the CIA trained Bin Laden as a scapegoat, basically telling him to ‘get lost’ after it’s all over. And then from this end he took care of the air defense by having something like 7 faulty emergency response tests that morning as well as the claimed explosives… etc.

Alright, so we’ve got our scenario. I think it’s fairly apparent what would need to be done on this end to ensure 9/11 to go off unhitched – at least from a technical point of view. If you want the 1st building in history to fall after a plane crash (something which is more common than you would think, even for NYC high rises), you gotta put in the explosives right? At least under this make believe scenario we’re looking at.

But we’re missing one thing in this scenario, and that’s the disinformation. Bush isn’t -that- dumb, and he’s certainly surrounded by enough genius’. You think that --under this scenario-- they didn’t think of the fact that people talk on the internet?

I remember when I first started looking… how many utterly ridiculous theories I came across. I even believed a bunch of them! But under this scenario… Bush and the fuckdusters would have been waiting, prepared for the liberals to come flocking. Wacky theories, people out on message boards (I’ve seen them) for the soul purpose of simply making things confusing and preventing intellectual progress by spouting hate and different ways to sway people’s opinion. For a while I seriously though Imp might be one of these people but… I don’t anymore.

So, we now have a bunch of people claiming ‘Bush was behind it’ because the true information is beginning to leak out like it always does. Bush knows he was, but at this point it’s time to start whipping off the Popular Mechanics article and stuff like it. Wanna know who is the chief editor as PM? … … actually me too cause I forget but it’s like Rove’s cousin, or Cheney’s Tai opium slave or something. I can’t speak for the rest of the stuff you presented Aspacia, but behind the ‘established credibility’ of the ‘names’ people will trust, names like PM and ‘CNN’ is data that just doesn’t hold up.

‘How do you know that? You’re not an expert!’ you might say.

Well… this is a just a fake scenario :smiley: … strange how it seems to make so much more sense than 17 terrorists and 7 ‘emergency tests’ on the same day though.

6

There is a problem here. I have no way of knowing which one of you was planted here by the CIA to dispense more disinformation about 9/11. #-o

Oh well, it gives everyone something to do… :unamused:

7

Aspacia,

I was initially very happy to see your post, because I very much agree with the “engineers!” sentiment, and I am still curious to know whether the much-touted “lateral explosions” that were well-documented in the WTC 1 and 2 collapses were normal in building collapses (due to compression waves?), or inherent just in controlled demolitions, or what.

Unfortunately, I find those links extremely lacking. For one, there have been MANY engineers who support “conspiracy theories” - that is, many engineers who have said “there’s no way the steel would melt / the buildings would collapse due to burning and exploding jet fuel”. Their arguments are efficiently and logically constructed, and are the exact same reason why no building in recent (post-1970) history has entirely collapsed due to fire except WTC 1, 2, and 7 - and 7 really has no excuse. The given link mean to show that the collapse of Building 7 was normal really didn’t address the question.

Many of those links are government links (doesn’t mean they can’t be trusted, but it DOES mean you can’t realistically use them to disprove govt. conspiracy), and several of those links have been taken down. Even the ones that are up don’t do a great job of addressing the questions in general.

I thought “Loose Change” would have been better if it had more statements from experts and well-documented objective sources, and fewer wild conjectures and less innuendo. Regardless, I’ve done a lot of internet searching since then, and there’s more than enough respectable academic backing to these theories to make a rational person say “hmm, maybe I don’t know everything”. The studies that I’ve repeatedly seen done by multiple independent respectable sources is that there’s no way the jet fuel could have caused the destruction it did.

One of the best known professors to publish his studies is Stephen Jones from BYU:

deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

I haven’t yet seen any good rejections of conspiracy theories, unfortunately.

8

You can usually spot them. They’ll ignore if you if you call them out… but it’s basically just statements like ‘This has been proven false’ or something similar. There is no… substance to their net selves because they are present for basically one purpose. That purpose is not to converse with one person like I’m doing now… but rather to disrupt the 3rd party reader’s opinion and thought process.

9

It matters because this was the worse attack on the USA since Pearl, and the attack was directed against civilians in WTC.

10

This is the only valid conspiracy theory that I have found so far.

Yes, but there are several civil engineering, and other sites as well.

Don’t worry, I do blindly trust our government either.

With regards,

aspacia
:sunglasses:

11

And civilians in the Pentagon. The Pentagon attack was branded as an attack on the military, but it was anything but. Wrong side of the building to take out any high-ranking people (a life is still a life, but politically speaking killing a higher ranking member is more powerful), wrong part of the building to cause significant damage. Hence the rather small hole, perhaps? Maybe the hijackers were just really badly informed about where to hit the Pentagon to cause the most damage.

Funny coincidence that the Pentagon construction began on 9/11 exactly 60 years before the attack. Now that really must be a coincidence. As is, one would think, the date also being when Bush snr made his ‘new world order’ announcement.

edit - for anyone interested in Steven Jones theories and evidence, the following google videos (free for download) tell you most of what you need to know.

Long lecture (2 hours)
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 2002408586

Update on molten metal
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 1085044923

Interviewed by Alex Jones of infowars.com
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 3834100001

At the American Scholars Symposium
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 4503963004

12

OK. We are not an invincible being. People will die. Death in our country is no different that the thousands of others that die around the world. No death is greater than any other death. The U.S. just thought that it was untouchable but no one can escape forever.

13

Sigh #-o and how are those unusual chemtrail, or was it UFO, sighting progressing.

:unamused:

14

What’s even funnier is that they managed to hit the only place in the pentagon where no one seemed to be present – the 1 part which was undergoing construction at the time.

The coincidence pile keeps building…

15

I merely pointed out that it would be more accurate to describe the pentagon attack as an attack on civilians than on the military. You act like I’m talking about UFOs. I think that demonstrates how you aren’t interested in a proper discussion about this.

The thermite devices would have to be welded onto the beams in a sort of bracket. That bracket would, naturally, have had to be sufficiently heat-resistant to not fall apart when the thermite goes off (thermite reaches temperature between 2500 and 3000 degrees). Thus, the likelihood of them being ignited by jet fuel fires is extremely low, because hydrocarbons simply don’t burn that hot in this atmosphere, let alone in the highly imperfect conditions in the WTC, demonstrated by the darkness of the smoke. Indeed, the thermodynamic analysis of the fuel estimated (by NIST, no less) to be in the building suggests a temperate of around 350-400 degrees would be the maximum achievable.

Also, it’s arguable that given all the asbestos, lead and mercury (and other toxic substances) in the two towers that you’d be causing more damage to more lives by collapsing the towers than by letting them partially topple. Indeed, that people were told that the air was safe to breath when it wasn’t demonstrates conclusively that the goverment and New York authorities were willing to lie, and put people’s lives at risk if not downright kill them, to get Wall Street open again. What does that imply? I dunno, but nothing very pleasant.

16

“Far more lies in heaven and earth than those wrought of your philosophies”
-Billy Shakespeare

I don’t know if I would believe either side of this but to declare it an absolute lie would be folly as mankind is not to be trusted.

17

Great post Twiffy, I do enjoy your insights! I am looking for enlightenment not to win.

Yes, many of the government links are lacking, but others do not appear to be. I am not a scientist, and try to stick to links that speak in layperson’s terms. That is “Talk down to me” as I haven’t a clue regarding science.

Most do not believe the steel melted, they believe the impact, the following explosion and fire weakened the steel and destabilized the buildings.

Hum, the last links, Mcleod and others seems to support part of this theory.

Hum, were these engineers claims written by them or someone else? I have read many conspiracy theorists use “valid support,” but did not provide the documentation written by engineers. That is a Bush hating academic cites experts, but distorts information. I have heard and read many. I am x, y and z, and know that. Well, what do you teach? Logic. How does that make you an expert in x, y or z. I have read the experts. Who and what is the title of the research. Talk about a huge dance.

Have there been any building as tall, with as much weight? Hum, did you see the devastation caused when the divorcing New Yorker blew up his townhouse. Not much.

One gallon of gas has the explosive power of several sticks of TNT. Now times this by several thousand gallons of high octane jet fuel KABOOM!

The explosion alone could have destabilized the towers because of the height. Note the Pentagon’s foundation was not destabilized.

Hum, have you stood at the top of a very tall building in a good wind? You can feel some motion.

True, I do not necessarily trust what the Feds claim. However, the Civil Engineering, Popular Mechanics, and others are more trustworthy. Many claim that because Popular Mechnics is owned by Herst it is not trustworthy. We have numerous recent issues of this magazine and there is very little, if any political agenda.

True, there is much to much wild conjecture with no valid support from experts.

Yes, but what is their discipline. You claim that many Civil Enginees support some conspiracy theories. I have not read this. I have read academics who teach logic, philosophy, etc., make such claims and claim to cite Engineers, but haven’t found valid engineers making these claims. Do you have a link?

Yes, but do you have valid sources? Again, I do not trust academics making claims outside their discipline. Also, I am more inclined to trust an engineering expert, a person who actually builds, than a physicist. They deal with structures, faulty construction, what makes buildings and bridges stand or fall, be weak or stand.

Yes, this is the one study that may be valid. Again he is a physicist, not an engineer.

Try to peruse the last few links posted. They appear to be more trustworthy.

My major problem with those who claim “Bush did it” is that it does not make sense for a neocon to deliberately cripple our country so he could be a wartime president. Bush is out to lunch to be sure, but I sincerely doubt he is this far gone.

With regards,

aspacia
:sunglasses:

18

I was unclear. My post was directed to Gobbo. Sorry bout that, and considering our history, I really mean this.

aspacia

19

Aspacia,

We have our fun, I make fun of you, you… try to make fun of me.

But sooner or later you, and many others will be like ‘Wow… he was a little off here and there, but Gobbo was basically right.’

Here check this out. Oh what many can buy. Don’t believe in weather technologies? The article doesn’t say… but the operation turned out to be a success and the birthday party went ahead as planned.

extra.rdg.ac.uk/news/inthene … &year=2004

If you don’t want to look up the skies, that’s fine. The fact is you’re being sprayed with a compound of which you know nothing about (not carbon dioxide itself, but the fact that whatever else is added, is a secret). I see it in Canada too, I live near a military base and while what we do up here (an occasional line or two for testing purposes I presume) it’s nothing compared to some of the stuff I’ve seen in the states while researching chemtrails. Clouds lined with black; spraying done at like… ridiculously low altitudes; mass, mass spraying (zig-zag and interweaving which literally turn a sunny day into overcast).

I would be suspicious of that… I heard a rumor (in the truest form of the word) that there is a disease which some say is way more likely to be induced by something in the spray. I forget what it’s called but it causes you to grow organic fibres from your skin which cannot be removed. Nice eh?

People are annoyed, no one wants to get sprayed with some shit they’re kept in the dark about. Apparently you’re not annoyed… that doesn’t change the fact that I’m right. :smiley:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … chemtrails

20

Fair enough, feel free to disregard that post.

:smiley: