Allright, there are 2 propositions I think we can all agree quite well on.
(1) There are various events that various agencies would like to distort or hide or lie about altogether. Whatever the motive of whomever. The politick is nowhere near perfect or honest.
(2) Like a criminal leaving the crime scene, there is always evidence that still remains even when agencies have taken long strides to alter / hide information.
In light of this, what do you believe is whittled or lied about? It can be mundane or far-fetched as you like. Surely, “because they have motive to hide it” is not good enough. Nor “because they 40,000,000 people said so.” Either way, state your appeal and we may consider the case for it.
(My apologies, this may have belonged in Social Sciences or somewhere else)
That Maddy McCann’s kidnapping was sold to the British press as a superstory so that Blair could have a quiet week after retiring as PM. My evidence for this is that it was front page news across the board within 48 hours of her going missing - when no one could have predicted that she’d basically never be found. And it happened so close to Blair’s retirement, which was long overdue, and widely anticipated. I’m sure many journalists had hate columns lined up for months beforehand, but they got buried because some posh couple’s kid disappeared hundreds of miles away.
That NATO ran a paramilitary terrorist network across Europe between the end of WWII and the early 1990s, almost entirely in secret. The evidence for this is huge and would take too long for me to list here.
That global warming is being deliberately used to enhance the prospects of global government, and an international currency of carbon. Whether or not it is happening and whether or not humans are the cause. (see 2 regarding evidence)
That three buildings were destroyed with explosives/incendiaries on 9/11. (see 3 regarding evidence)
It is unsurprising to me that the scientifically minded have no knowledge or belief in massive conspiracy. Ditto most of the posters here.
The largest conspiracy in mankind is the U.S. government’s involvement in matters of UFOs. Regardless of the so-called evidence, whether you believe in UFOs or not, or any other circumstancial information that is relevant or not, why does a government not address a phenomenon that occurs overwhelmingly to pilots that oversee the world’s air defenses? Couldn’t the government just say that people are seeing objects in the sky and they don’t know what they are? No, they don’t and they can’t. They are just as clueless as the rest of the people on the planet, despite having whatever information they may or may not withhold. Is the error in the person who witnesses the phenomenon or in the actuality of the phenomenon itself? How likely is it that alien civilizations exist that have mastered space-travel or even inter-stellar space-travel already? Why would it be such a leap to posit that such civilizations would be watching Earth like a child does with an ant farm?
Hahaha. So give us absolutely no evidence, not even the frame-work of an explanation to support it? thats a lot better. You could at least say “So and so studies suggest or show”
Alright, if you insist - look up the three part BBC documentary series broadcast in the early 1990s, shortly after the Italian PM first admitted the existence of the network.
Then look up Daniele Ganser’s widely recognised work ‘Nato’s secret armies’. That was published a few years ago, so includes much more up to date information than the BBC documentaries. Three governments have investigated the networks in their own countries, and there was a lengthy legal battle in Belgium trying to establish whether the Gladio paramilitary group or possibly a different state sponsored group were responsible for the Brabant massacres.
Or you could just google ‘operation gladio’ or maybe even ‘Vincenzo Vinciguerra’ and click on a few links. Or you could actually look up the post I wrote about this over a year ago which I think was in the Social Sciences forum.
I could go on at great length about this and dig up literally hundreds of links but I don’t really have the time, particularly when your mode of inquisition is, well, what it is.
Well, the former is rather obvious when you look into the background of how and why the IPCC was formed and the process by which they publish reports. One example that proved pretty positive to me that pressure is being applied to only tell a certain story about global warming is the programme, available on google video and elsewhere, called ‘the great global warming swindle’. It received massive complaints from scientific bodies and pressure groups and thinktanks and all the rest of it but the only one upheld by the censors (ofcom) was that it only told one side of the story, that its reporting was slanted if you like. None of the scientific criticisms and complaints were upheld, only the political complaints. But of course, in the UK the show stood out for being one of very very few to even question the story that’s allowed to be told. None of the mainstream shows, despite numerous complaints from conspiracy theorists, sceptics and so on, have been censored.
So, political pressure is taking precedence over science, though scientific bodies are applying some of the political pressure. The censorship body in this country upheld a complaint against a sceptical show but does nothing about reams of equally biased shows telling the preferred story.
As to 9/11 - the absence of any reasonable explanation as to the collapse of the buildings (even NIST only explained the twin towers initiation of collapse, not how and why it continued and caused uniform global collapse) means that the ballpark is wide open to other theories as to what happened. The only theory I’ve come across that explains all the aspects of the collapse (and would also explain the immense coverup that then plainly took place) is controlled demolition. It explains the sudden onset, the speed of the collapse, the fact that it destroyed pretty much the entire building(s), the noises, the videos and pictures showing tremendous burst of lateral energy (clouds, solid concrete, even gigantic metal beams), the pyroclastic clouds, the massive heat reported by the witnesses and detailed in hundreds of photographs, the fires in the collapse pile, the molten metal in the collapse pile, etc. etc.
Theres plenty of scientific reports that explained easily what could have happened. Controlled demolition gets the boot the second you realize that there were no recorded explosions of that type of sensitive scientific equipment in the area. Of course though, conspiracy theorists just say that the government bullied the scientists into reporting that there was only a plane hitting a building, or they believe bullshit interpretations of the seismic information online, ignoring the scientists whose work their commenting on, or whatever.
its more than sad, and its hard to even get into, hearing the same dumb explanations over and over and over. fuck, even popular mechanics for kids, responded with an explanation that makes more sense, has more evidence than a demolition.
Or, if you want to be entertained and still get the good science. “Seconds to disaster” is a tv show, specifically about explaining large disasters like hotel-store collapse, boat-turn-overs, walk-way collapses, they interview plenty of top of the line scientists and explain the results of scientific teams and also give you a step by step explanation of the disaster (as explained by experts) with a 3d representation of the event.
For those people too ‘un-imaginative’ to imagine a building falling because of the explanation offered by some ‘expert’ or ‘team of experts’ it should seem more realistic on a 3d scale.
Anyway, theres an ep on the events of 9/11. Theres also one on why the oklahoma building got so wrecked by that blast.
dramatic show. Theres also an ep where a incorrect fan model was placed in a ‘train’ system meant to ferry people up to the top of a skying slope, anyway, because of its incorrect model/placement oil dripped onto it and it eventually created an electrical fire that started to consume the bus, only a few people survived, who chose to walk down past the flames, as opposed to up the tunnel where the smoke went.
In one episode, they explain how the people investigating this fire at a train station discover a behavior of fire previously unknown to science. As fire slowly climbed these steps (a set of steep steps) they super-heated the area around it, and as some guy walked by, he got hit with this jet of flame, like from a flame-thrower, that happened instantly, after the slowly ‘crawling’ fire, made it to a certain place.
FEMA report on building 7 openly admits its explanation had ‘only a low probablity’ of being correct
9/11 Commission Report barely mentioned the collapses
NIST report didn’t mention building 7, and only explained ‘collapse initiation’ in the twin towers, not the total collapse mechanism
2nd NIST report on building 7 cited a phenomenon never seen before or since, in experimentation or by accident
You kidding? There are videos with explosions on the soundtrack. There are hundreds of witnesses, inside the towers and out, who talk about hearing or seeing explosions.
I haven’t done this. Insult other people for doing so if you must but it’s a bit of a red herring if you ask me.
Are you actually going to present a counterargument, or just label and try to divert attention?
Ironically, the articles in popular mechanics were not written by firemen, or structural engineers, or demolition professionals. Not to mention they fail to explain the sudden onset, the straight down nature of the collapse, etc. etc.
But feel free to keep pedalling the classic rebuttal that has already been comprehensively taken to pieces. If you’d like to continue this discussion, I suggest you deal with the arguments themselves rather than just label, divert, make vague reference to articles and so on…
Skeptics magazine had an entire issue dedicated to the 9/11 conspiracy, and from what I remember had no trouble debunking most, if not all, of the points mentioned in this thread.
I wish I could be more useful, but I’m not sure I still own the magazine. Just wanted to suggest that this would be a good place to start if one is interested in truly knowing both sides of the argument. The issue satisfied all of my curiosities about 9/11 conspiracy.
It cites specific passages from the article, for example:
‘Satisfied all’ your curiosities? I mean, fair enough, believe what you like. But if that’s the quality of magazine that convinces you then I think it’s a bit dishonest to claim it shows ‘both sides of the argument’.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that it shows both sides of the argument. I simply meant that it would be a good start to getting both sides of the argument. Obviously, you would then need to check 9/11 truth movement sites to get a full picture.
I read the article you posted. The thing that makes the issue so difficult is that there are soooooo many facts to sort through that it makes it very easy to come up with alternative theories. You have one side with professionals stating it happened one way, another side that says it happened another way, and then most people who are just tired of being inundated with facts.
I wonder what, if anything, would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that it was Al Qaeda, and happened as the government says. I wonder what would convince me that it happened as the 9/11 truth movement says.
I’d like to tack on a few of my own, but I don’t think they’re so much conspiracies as aliens, 9/11, etc.
It isn’t even that - it’s a hit piece, designed to convince ‘floating’ opinions of the official story, or just fudge the issue so much that people decide not to bother.
Or read some of the very sincere and carefully written academic books on the subject.
I’ve spent years reading about 9/11. I don’t find it difficult to ascertain that what the 9/11 Commission said simply cannot be true. Particularly when the Commissioners themselves flat out said that the military lied, and when we know that evidence of foreign government involvement has been classified.
That’s because the people who pulled this off are also behind the mind-numbing propaganda of reality TV shows and professional sports. If you create a stupid, lazy population then pulling off cover ups is a lot easier.
Dunno about other people but for me, nothing. It simply cannot have happened the way the 9/11 Commission said. And Al Qaeda don’t really exist, or at least, don’t exist in the sense of a stateless international terrorist network financed by one Saudi billionaire.
How about a US military official stating that they’d planned such an event way back in the 1970s?
MOVE firebombing, bologna train station, the assassination of Aldo Moro, JFK, MLK, the Srebrenica massacre…
On and on it goes. I could literally give you a hundred examples of state sponsored terrorism.
Don’t even bother, the conspiracy theorist ideas are never falsifiable, under any circumstances. Any idea which could remotely show their ideas to be false, are explained away as more layers of the conspiracy. (IE: explaining away the seismic results of scientists, and their explanations for those results: ie no controlled demolition).
When someone with seismic graphs in the area tells you there was a recorded impact when the plane hit, but no signs of a controlled demolition, besides appealing to bullshit ‘authorities’ to reinterpret the same graphs, or to blatantly lie about them, they can’t explain that away either.
I can’t even begin to get into this; I spent three hours laying out the facts to some moron I have on msn, and not one thing made them blink, not for a second; the idea was already there and it wasn’t going anywhere.
I’ve read explanations from experts about how it wasn’t controlled demolition, i’ve watched experts go through complete 3d models to explain how the buildings fell, and i’ve also read the conspiracy theorist claims, again and again and again.
thermite comes up a lot, thats even more annoying. your question though what could convince the conspiracy theorist that the buildings fell because a giant plane flew through them; there isn’t anything which could. Its all explainable by the government conspiracy.
You’re admitting that your belief is by its very nature, non falsifiable? and for some reason, you don’t think your statements are beyond idiotic? Why? What possible train of thought do you have, that you think its okay to entertain non-falsifiable ideas? that even in theory, nothing for you could ever do it?
the link you provide us takes us to a professor of theology giving us the low down on why the explanations of engineers/etc is wrong. Nice.
“Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006)”
A wholeheartedly dogmatic and non-falsifiable attitude you have there.
Even the teen brat of the 9/11 truth movement, Dylan Avery, remade his film four times because of criticism and being proven wrong on some points. And he’s not a smart guy, not at all. He banned me from his forum, the conte.
If memory serves, the 1993 bombing of the WTC didn’t produce a measurable seismic signal because it wasn’t coupled to the ground. Yet it was a very powerful bomb.
Plus, if thermate or some other incendiary were used to cut the columns, rather than blow them up, then no large explosive charge would be needed.
Plus, if the various explosions reported by the predominance of witnesses on record were in fact designed to gradually weaken the building then maybe no great explosion at the end would be necessary at all.
As to the seismic record of the planes crashing - are you familiar with the story of William Rodriguez?
And your entire opinion of conspiracy theorists and the 9/11 Truth movement seems to based on this one rather fruitless exchange. I’m here, feel free to talk to me.
Care to cite them?
The complex 3d models NIST created to explain the collapse when their material experiments failed to produce the desired result?
Then you’ll have no problem refuting all the things I’ve said. Something which you’ve so far failed to do in any way, shape or form.
A ‘giant’ plane? They are mid size planes, let’s be fair. If they were even planes. And given that we only have video footage of one of the four planes, and each different camera of that footage shows something different (suggesting a LOT of fakery), there’s no guarantee they were planes.
But assuming they were, the buildings were designed to withstand such an impact, and indeed did withstand such an impact, in that they stood up perfectly well without showing any sign of imminent collapse for quite some time after the impacts. Hence the focus on the issue of the sudden onset of the collapses.
Depends on who you talk to. I’ve been suggesting for a long time that aside from getting the military to deliberately cock up the defences (via war games and so forth), the entire operation could have been conducted by a non-US government, or a military for hire (mercenary) firm like Kroll.
My belief about what did happen is falsifiable. My belief that it couldn’t have happened the way the 9/11 Commission said is not falsifiable.
You impress no one with this sort of attitude.
Perhaps I’m not a scientist. Perhaps I don’t feel bound by scientific philosophy. Perhaps my belief (that the 9/11 Commission’s story isn’t possible) isn’t falsifiable because it makes no appeal to evidence? Ever think of that one? Maybe I’m making a categorical statement (such and such is impossible) because such and such contains logical contradictions?
My statement is ‘in theory’, in that it is an analytical statement and not a synthetic one. As such, falsifiability isn’t relevant.
This is an ad hominem argument that fails to deal with the actual issues raised in the link.
As to engineers - ever read the ‘Fire Engineering’ magazine article on the collapses and subsequent investigation? That’s a publication written about the specific topic (how to engineer to cope with fire) that utterly disagrees with the theory presented by the engineers from NIST.
But no matter, since you were clearly unaware that the engineers are in fact quite divided on the topic and therefore can’t be taken as a singular authoritative force as you have just done.
Perhaps your modus operandi of derogatory labelling could be expanded to include some actual discussion of the topic. Just perhaps. Otherwise it is a pretty boring conversation, as you try to derogate and label and I give you the information that shows you’re wrong, over and over…
I could go on about the Absurd amount of material needed to cut the columns in that way, and how those kinds of fire are a natural result of aluminum + rust interactions, but whats the point you’ll never take any of it seriously.
Tell me how much thermite you need to cut through columns that size?
I’ll tell you, an aluminum plane crashing through miles of rusty steel cable. Iron Oxide + aluminum = very bad accidental fires in construction. (drill)
but seriously, you’d need insane amounts of thermite to cut a vertical column (and it doesn’t naturally ignite in that way anyway to clean cut in a bunch of ways) let alone the amount of melted metal found/seen.
Thats part of your problem, when you’re talking about a building falling down theres nothing to look to besides science. Which means, ideas should be falsifiable if ‘so and so’ were true. If not, the ideas aren’t worth talking about in any kind of way, besides as some kind of conceptual idea or quasi-proposition, not as an explanation for why a building fell down.
What accounts for the sulphur? From where do you get ‘miles of rusty steel cable’?
It would if you used a shaped charge.
Loads of witnesses have talked of seeing large quantities of molten metal. There are some photos of it, but not many because access to the site was so restricted. No doubt me pointing out the lack of photos is because the site was restricted will be seen by you to be me just ‘adding another layer of conspiracy’.
Even though it’s perfectly true.
Of course there is. Science isn’t a complete body of knowledge for heaven’s sake…
In your philosophy maybe. Perhaps I’m not bound by that. Just because science is your God concept doesn’t mean it has to be mine as well.
No idea, I can’t access the link. Won’t load as HTML, won’t download as .pdf
Conclusive is your word, not mine.
Written in early 2002. Even then, qualified people were asking questions.
That’s a whole other conspiracy. And less a conspiracy than just the nature of institutionalised knowledge, scientific or otherwise.