9/11 - What do you think?

[Seshmeister]

What makes you think FORD is a journalist?

[Tob]

I've looked at the evidence - what I wholeheartedly reject are stories of controlled demolitions

Notice we have realized evidence with video FORD presented, also from a "Federal Emergency Management Agency" manual scan. We have audio, we have video, "record" with "testimony" - we know "explosive" force occurred within "basement" of a "World Trade Center" tower. We know a plane "hit" such a second later or so. We know of fires-setting. We know of "depression" with "hurricanes" that have been appearing one after another, 3 or 4. We know "flooding" was occurring. We know "shooting" was occurring. Everything with this week or the week previous to present - "U.S." force is "fearing" our AWARENESS, communication, question, answer. Realize, we may know with experiencing such "U.S." media "news" within this country.

[knuckleboner]

Well, the most blatant example would be a fire supposedly hot enough to melt or "weaken" steel (which itself is ridiculous) miraculously did NOT burn the Holy Allah-Blessed Passport of alleged Jihad Warrior Mohammed Atta.

Either somebody planted that thing, or Allah truly DID bless this attack, and left a piece of fucking paper intact to bring glory unto Him.

dude, you REALLY need to start thinking.

a) NOBODY but the truthers mention the fire as possibly hot enough to MELT steel. that's because that's NOT what the explanation is.

b) the impact sites took out a number of the exterior support beams. this weakened the ability of the hit floor to hold up the mass of the above floors. this is a FACT. anybody who disagrees on this is lost to reality.

c) fire DOES weaken steel. FACT. how much this particular fire weakened these particular steel supports may be debated. but that increasing heat leads to an increasing weakenss of steel is beyond debate.

d) therefore, under the right combination of circumstances - 1) number of beams destroyed; 2) heat, proximity and duration of fire; and 3) mass above the weakened beams, it is a FACT that given the right combination of these, a WTC-like collapse is possible. anybody who disagrees with this is, as sesh mentioned, arguing from a religous-like fervor, NOT science or fact.

now, i'll give you that there are unknown variables in the story. exactly how many beams were destroyed? we have a good estimate, but don't know exactly. exactly how hot did the fire get? again, we know how hot it should burn, but don't know 100%. exactly how close was the fire to exactly how many beams? again, we have a range of possibilities, but don't know for certain. now, many, many engineers have said that given the most likely values for those variables, the collapse was by far the most likely explanation.

however, if somebody wants to argue a different set of variables, and say that they believe the collapse story is LESS LIKELY, then they're welcome to do so. (though, up to now, the data does not show that).

i'm not asking anybody to believe with 100% certainty that the WTC collapse happened exactly as the widely accepted story goes. i'm simply saying that if anybody is 100% certain that story was IMPOSSIBLE then they are demonstrating either an omnipotent knowledge of how the exact situation in the impact zone was different than expected, a lack of understanding of physics and chemistry, or a self interest in lying.

[Unchainme]

Fuck it

It wasn't al qaeda, bush or shadowy gov't operatives, we all know the real "man" behind it was this guy:

[binnie]

It's kind of freaky the way the human brain can work. In the program tonight when they showed absolute evidence to the conspiracy theorists 1 accepted it, a couple became more doubtful but 2 got upset at their belief system being questioned and just refused to accept any logic or evidence.

FORD is like that on this issue. We've been through this countless times now, he always completely loses any semblance of an argument goes quiet for a bit and then starts back at the beginning months later as though nothing had ever been previously said. He's made up his mind and because he has so much invested in this now he is unable to think logically. It becomes like a fanaticism. He wants it to be true so he just dismisses any evidence(which is the vast majority) that doesn't fit and tries to shoehorn things to get to the end result he needs.

It's pointless arguing with someone with this problem but I do here because there are other people who have maybe just seen a couple of these misleading bullshit conspiracy things on the internet and are on the fence and may read the thread.

Some of the reason this nonsense has had legs is that most of the experts in the field have better things to do and so never even bother to say the conspiracy is shit because they find that conclusion obvious.

I don't think that funtion is unique to conspiracy theories. It's common to most philosophies.

Think about any extreme left/right winger. Each will simply shoe-horn facts and evidence or other items of news into their pre-esxisting metanarratives about the world. The way the recent riots in Britain were absorbed into those narratvies almost immediately was very interesting....

[Seshmeister]

It's important to realise though that these conspiracy theories are like a religious cult for some people.

At that point giving them facts or showing evidence to them doesn't have much effect.

[SunisinuS]

And even if it was a conspiracy...so what then? The deed has already been done.

[binnie]

True.

I think that they are the minority, however. For many people its not a case of accepting the conspiracy theory as 100% true, but rather that its very existence confirms their suspicion that the 'official' story doesn't add up (do all Daily Express readers believe that Princess Di was assasinated? Probably not, but they may not accept that it was an accident, either - they are conditioned to doubt, not believe). For example: I've seen a lot of Michael Moore films, but I don't 'believe' everything he says - he may have me angry/doubt the world for a couple of days, and may have made me question 'official' lines for a while, but the lasting impact was minimal. The religious analogy is interesting: like most world faiths, I would say that the 'extremists' of conspiracy theories are the minoirty (although, like religions, they are usually the most vocal and vociferous).

My point is simply that we all have pre-conceived ideas about how the world is ordered/works through which we interpret evidence/news/facts (scientists call them paradigms) as it is impossible to approach reality in a completely pure or non-pjeroative manner (even if we strive too). Conspiracy theories are a more extreme - and tendencious - version of that inherent problem which mankind faces in understanding the world. You may find youself slipping into conspiratorial thinking every now and again (I certainly do) - if not a fully articulated 'theory', their is a lot of conspiratorial language and feeling levied towards the bankers/ the economy at the moment. People quite easily pass beyond accusing them of incompetence/wrecklesses into some sort of industry wide malevolence.

[Seshmeister]

True.

I think that they are the minority, however. For many people its not a case of accepting the conspiracy theory as 100% true, but rather that its very existence confirms their suspicion that the 'official' story doesn't add up (do all Daily Express readers believe that Princess Di was assasinated? Probably not, but they may not accept that it was an accident, either - they are conditioned to doubt, not believe).

Totally and these people are the only reason for posting anti conspiracy theory facts. They are the 'no smoke without fire people' who don't take time to look into it but may catch the odd truther propaganda film and think that there is something in it. I don't think it's helpful for people to go through life falsely thinking that their government has secretly murdered thousands of their own people.

If nothing else it takes their eyes off the stuff that is actually true and important like their government fucking up in not preventing it and the subsequent fuck ups causing the deaths of many many more thousands.

[Nitro Express]

Kind of interesting. For me at the least the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen and at the most they made it happen.

[Nitro Express]

I'm spending all of 9/11/11 golfing. I'm not going to watch any television or listen to the radio. I'm just going to have fun for myself to honor the day.

[Unchainme]

Kind of interesting. For me at the least the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen and at the most they made it happen.

No question

But not over some evil plan to kill millions, no it was just purely over ineptness in my eyes.

[FORD]

What makes you think FORD is a journalist?

Probably the same thing that makes him think Sammy Hagar is a lyricist.

[FORD]

Kind of interesting. For me at the least the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen and at the most they made it happen.

The BCE is ultimately responsible no matter what story you believe. It was Poppy's CIA who created "Al Qaeda" as a tool against the Commies in Afghanistan. It was BCE/CIA operatives in Florida who supposedly taught the terraists how to fly planes. While Jeb Bush was governor.

So the BCE did it. One way or another, they goddamn did it.

[binnie]

Totally and these people are the only reason for posting anti conspiracy theory facts. They are the 'no smoke without fire people' who don't take time to look into it but may catch the odd truther propaganda film and think that there is something in it. I don't think it's helpful for people to go through life falsely thinking that their government has secretly murdered thousands of their own people.

If nothing else it takes their eyes off the stuff that is actually true and important like their government fucking up in not preventing it and the subsequent fuck ups causing the deaths of many many more thousands.

Exactly.

If their elites conspiring against us, I would like to know where they meet and how I can become one.