It really comes back to what I say at the top. People view the facts through a prism of their own prejudice. Myself included. Take a general assumption that the US gov has something to hide about 911 and automatically every bit of information that isn't established beyond reasonable doubt becomes highly suspicious, particularly when it is presented in the most sinister light - there is a degree of intellectual dishonesty at play with the way the conspiracy theorists present their arguments. Equally, as a believer in the crazies-did-it-theory, I see very little to be suspicious about. Certainly there are some curious facts that warrant further explanation, but they aren't nearly as common as the 911 "truth" people would have us believe IMHO nor does their existence cast a sufficiently long shadow to warrant doubting the official version.

A problem with the 9/11 conspiracy is that it is a global wank. The majority of the travelling population don't give a stuff, except when they get held up at airport security.

There is a small population of tragics who view the world (and sadly their own government) as some kind of conspiracy against the common people. There are many examples of this mindset through history. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other Nazi propaganda about the "International Jewish Conspiracy" come to mind.

A tiny number of people question these noisy blowhards. Rag-Doll goes for the rhetoric. I wish I could do that, but I don't have his talent. I'm technical. The 9/11 bullshit artistes don't have a farking clue. They are happy to parade their ignorance of the most basic scientific and engineering principles as some kind of magic revelation. I would personally be ashamed to demonstrate to the world how clueless I am, but some people have no pride.

But Soubs the vast bulk of humanity is completely and utterly clueless, especially when it comes to science. The basic concepts of science are so mysterious to most that they find religion to be more credible! These conspiracy theorists tap into these moronic masses with consumate ease.

Science (and by extension Engineering) is easy. All you need are a few simple rules, and everything follows. My maths are crap, but that didn't stop me making it to a Senior Research Scientist at the CSIRO.

The reason science is thought of is hard, is due to the shit teachers. Cretin (Curtin) University sacked me. The tenured Sedimentology Lecturer went on long service leave. They drafted me in to teach his year. At the end of the year, I got rave reviews from the students, best results from any class. The tenured wiseheads got together and sacked me.

Search for rottnest on these forums.

Oyuki.

My posts are based on my analysis. Your posts follow others and add nothing. Someone is thinking for themselves, and someone is being lead.

Got that right, soubs! Conspiracy theory is ALWAYS just that, a THEORY! There is no possibility of testing the hypothesis (in fact it is not an hypothesis, just a jumble of unrelated and selectively quoted items from a rather obscure source).

Building 7. Simple. The automatic re-fueling system pumped 12,000 gallons of diesel into the fire. It automatically switched on when the power and water failed, and kept going till the building collapsed.

Oyuki. You can continue to push shit uphill until the cows come home. You can convince yourself and 011, the pope and the Mahdi that 9/11 is a conspiracy between the CIA, the mafia and the catholic church etc. etc. My opinion is SNAFU.

Oyuki. O11 followed the Church of the Righteous Way in attempting to lead us non-believers through the 9/11 true path.

He failed and he's gone. Tell me black is white. Then go away.

Whoa-ho, big guy. Relax.

I just brought this up to add some spice to the boards, not to cause a fight. I'm not that seriously invested in the arguement, i just wanted to see what peole's views were.

Truly personally sorry. That's an apology.

Sorry. Apologies.

I don't know enough to really take part, but have found it all to be interesting reading!

It's about the anti-science trolls who want their children dead and their women to die in childbirth. Dead women and children are much preferable to knowledge. That would be science, a Man Thing.

I was with you up until there, Soub. I don't know about the dead babies stuff, though.

I don't know what actually happened but am convinced that there has been a massive coverup, even if its only of asleep-at-the-wheel-type incompetence. Since there has been repeated obstructions of justice (read "coverup"), the official version itself will forever remain a conspiracy theory. It cannot be accepted as truth because it has not been subjected to sufficiently vigorous verification, just like any other theory. Given the gravity of the event, every piece of evidence could and should have been poured over with the greatest possible diligence, if only to ensure that such a terrible attack could never ever happen again. Unfortunately the investigation we got fell far far short of that. That's based on what the people who did the investigating have said, and I believe them. Its also idiotic to have three well-populated buildings collapse and then not examine any the damage to them to see why they collapsed the way they did. There are hundreds of similar buildings still standing, some of them no doubt potential targets, near flight paths, or just potential sites of fires. Do they need reinforcing or more fire protection? Based on 9/11, we can say nothing. The wreckage wasn't examined.

Regardless of the above, and ultimately far more important than it, 9/11 was used as an excuse to launch two illegal wars of aggression, both of them crimes against humanity. This is the most serious of all human crimes. The Bush Administration and their cohorts will all get away with it of course, but they are still criminals of the highest order. Its not easy to accept having criminals as leaders, but that's the world we're in.

But Wigs, they did do the investigation and they did very thoroughly look at why the buildings fell over. One of the links Soubs posted goes on at length about how the towers were constructed and how the forces involved worked and why the planes alone probably wouldn't have brought the towers down nor the fires, but the two events combined did and why they did and how they did. This is the problem with the 911 truth people. They deliberately exclude information and then point to it's absence as indicating some sort of mystery. You're probably right to some degree there would have been some arse covering, absolutely. Without any irony, the truth really is out there! All you have to do is get past the loonies who want to fill up the internet with nonsense. Like the list of events and questions that Oyuki posted yesterday (not saying Oyuki is a loonie filling the internet with nonsense, just the people compiling the list). Taken as a whole, it looks quite compelling, when in reality if you take a critical look at what is offered up most of it turns out to be a bogus beat up. Why do the 911 people feel the need to do that? It's a pity they don't apply the same level of critical review to their own arguments that they apply to public information.

Oh and I don't think anyone is calling Afghanistan illegal.

Its OK Soubs, n offense taken. I have been known to get heated up myself on internet arguements. It happens, and apology accepted

back to the issue at hand, a question about tower 7. Back on page 2, you mentioned about tower 7.

Originally Posted By: soubriquet

you seem to imply that you don't disagree, that building 7 was 'pulled' (ie taken down on purpose).

Yet just above, you claim



which is it?

I understand that on the surface some views about 9/11 sound wild and extreme, but to my mind, no moreso that claiming that it was coincidence that a) standard interception procedure failed at the FAA and bases (with all its redundancies), b)all the towers' many redundancies failed (as they were designed to take such a hit), that building 7 failed (and looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, what are the odds?), that the pentagon was successfully hit by a crap pilot who somehow managed to pull of an extremely difficult maneuver, that the flight that was overpowered by the crew did not crash in any kind of normal way, that ... it was a day of the most amazing coincidences.

I can't name them all, its been a while since i read the book 'A New Pearl Harbor' that details all of it. If anyone is interested in seeing what 'the other side' say, check that out, or see if there are any youtube clips of the doc 'Improbable Collapse".

What does "Pulled" mean?
How was Silverstein using the word?

Was he referring to the allocation of resources to fight the fire in the building or was he referring to setting off demolition charges presumably laid prior to 911 in the expectation that one or both planes would do sufficient damage to the Towers to create a large enough disaster to create a plausible scenario for Building 7 to collapse in sympathy. Maybe I'm just too trusting, but you know, I reckon he just might have been talking about the fire fighters...

I am reluctant to use this site, but it does have video (i can't watch it through on this computer, let me know if it is unrelated)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Aaah!

Oyuki, the information these sites present is so biased as to be completely useless. I can't see the vid on this computer either but let's consider what we can see. We have a couple of paragraphs of inflammatory comments that have no probative value whatsoever. CAPS used to distinguish previous text:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. WHAT INDUSTRY - DEMOLITION INDUSTRY(?) ASSUMING THERE IS SUCH A THING, IS SILVERSTEIN IN THAT INDUSTRY? DID HE MEAN THAT OR DID HE MEAN SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY, LIKE GIVING UP TRYING TO SAVE IT? THIS IS AMBIVALENT AT BEST.

We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments. WHY WOULD HE IF THE WORDS WERE USED IN A COMPLETELY INNOCUOUS WAY? PROVES NOTHING.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors. PHOTOS FROM THIS ANGLE MAYBE. I THINK I HAVE SEEN THESE PHOTOS AND VID BEFORE AND FROM MEMORY, THE BUILDING COLLAPSES AWAY FROM THE CAMERA. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE EXACTLY HOW MUCH DAMAGE WAS SUSTAINED ON THE SIDE THAT COLLAPSES - I HAVEN'T LOOKED, BUT ARE THERE ANY PHOTOS OF THAT SIDE? I BET THERE AREN'T BECAUSE IT ISN'T ANYWHERE NEARLY AS SUSPICIOUS WHEN YOU SEE MASSIVELY DAMAGED BUILDING COLLAPSING

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed. AFTER ALL THE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG ON THE DAY, THOSE POOR BASTARDS FINALLY GOT A BREAK! PROVES NOTHING

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million! INVESTMENT VERSUS REPLACEMENT VALUE. HMMM, YOU DON'T RECKON THAT MAYBE A BIT OF CAPITAL APPRECIATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PLACE AND WHEN IT WAS DESTROYED?