If the 9/11 Conspiracy theories are ever proven?

mookie9999 · August 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Oh, ok so you're saying the planes caused all the bone fragments to shoot out?

I'm saying the buildings didn't fall at projectile speeds.

The proof just isn't there. It's not a solid case by any means. You do realize that right?

First off, I'm not saying that the planes caused all of the bone fragments to shoot out. If you have a chance read my posts with questions that I posed to JamMastaE and feel free to answer them if you're able. Now, if the buildings didn't fall at a fast enough rate of speed to project bone fragments out of them, how fast would a building have to fall to do such a thing? As to the proof not being there, the burden of proof is in the hands of the conspiracy theorists, no one else. As such, I ask you, as I did JamMasterE, to provide me with any proof, of a building that has collapsed on top of people, that is at least close to the size of the trade centers, that has not sent bone fragments flying for hundreds of feet around, but rather kept them confined to the building. If you can great, I will be standing by your side to blow the whistle. However, 9/11 was so unique in the destruction that occured, at such a magnitude that had never been seen before, how can you or anyone else that believes these theories say that the buildings collapse could not be responsible for bone fragments flying about? It's impossible and ludicrous to do so.

DriftingByTheStorm · August 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Oh, ok so you're saying the planes caused all the bone fragments to shoot out?

I'm saying the buildings didn't fall at projectile speeds.

The proof just isn't there. It's not a solid case by any means. You do realize that right?

Roland,
regarding the towers collapsing, and i hate to even get in to this with you, because on many levels i regard you as a compatriot ... but don't you find it possible (if not plausible even) that with a gaping hole in the buildings struture ... and with the video showing the following even ... that the TOP PORTION of the building ... not one floor or two floors ... but a good twenty floors or so of the towers ... having been structuraly seperated from their lower floor counterparts ... CAME DOWN EN MASSE ... and look at the video ... the ENTIRE TOP OF THE BUILDING ... a solid chunk of floors ... snapped off of the remaining supports and fell AS A BLOCK (at least partially, and initially) through the floor and floors immediately below this block ...

that isn't even pancake ... not floor by floor pancake anyhow ... that is like dropping a 500lb ball of lead through a tissue ...

call the 500lb ball the top floors, and the piece of tissue the floor below it ... now stack a 1000 sheets of tissue togeather with just enough room for seperation (hell past the tissues to jenga blocks on either side) and the ball will fall through all thousand of those tissues as well ...

yeah sure, each sheet gives some resistance ... but the amount of resistance is paultry compared with the mass of the object falling through it ...

it isn't the greatest analogy, but i don't know much that IS a great analogy for such an event ... i just know that if you think about the top 1\5th of the building plummeting through the bottom floors, it may help you see that it need not have been a controlled demolition to happen ...

of course, i won't rule out entirely that some basement blast could have also made it much easier for the thing to come down ... but you can clearly see the top of the building "crushing" the sections below it ... that IS where the collapse starts and you can and have watched it over and over ...

instead of your singular focus on the buildings being "demolished" why not move on and discuss things like the time line and why the FAA chairman puts Dick Cheney in the command bunker around 8:20 but the 911 Commission Report doesn't put him there until like 8:50 ... or the war games, or the ISI Chief who met with our defense officials and who also ordered money wired to Atta ... or the numerous warnings that the administration received and did NOT act on ... or the reports that Osama was given medical treatment in as US military hospital some months before the attack (when he was a KNOWN terrorist threat) ...

why not bring up some of these points and pull some research for people to see on those instead?

You just seem to constantly hit a wall (no pun intended) with the building collapse theory ... maybe try another one?

spiral out · August 2007

onelongsong wrote:

his/her point was that with conspiracy; there is nobody responsable. the evidence shows that it happened as we saw it. conspiracy says it didn't. if the evidence pointed to bush; the conspiracy would say he's not smart enough and is only the scapegoat. if det wire or piece of blasting cap was found pointing to implosion; the conspiracy would be that it was planted to cover up the truth.
conspiracy theorists don't look at evidence. in their minds; they believe they know the truth so evidence that doesn't fit their belief; is manufactured evidence. conspiracy theorists also need a conspiracy to fulfill that need. they have a need to disagree with what is accepted. if you believed it was an implosion and everyone else believed you; you would then feel that something else happened.

I was mearly asking the question to ascertain if they did anything to educate themselves on something other than wasting so much time on insulting people who don't see things the way they do.

But while i am answering you what you have said about facts and ignoring some could be turned around on people who believe everything the media throws at them. What makes the media loving folk so right?

onelongsong wrote:

conspiracy theorists suffer from a psycological condition. since you wouldn't believe this; he/she directed you to do the research yourself. your response was typical and straight to the defensive blaming yet another conspiracy.

What conspiracy are you talking about? Is propaganda a conspiracy?

mookie9999 · August 2007

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Roland,
regarding the towers collapsing, and i hate to even get in to this with you, because on many levels i regard you as a compatriot ... but don't you find it possible (if not plausible even) that with a gaping hole in the buildings struture ... and with the video showing the following even ... that the TOP PORTION of the building ... not one floor or two floors ... but a good twenty floors or so of the towers ... having been structuraly seperated from their lower floor counterparts ... CAME DOWN EN MASSE ... and look at the video ... the ENTIRE TOP OF THE BUILDING ... a solid chunk of floors ... snapped off of the remaining supports and fell AS A BLOCK (at least partially, and initially) through the floor and floors immediately below this block ...

that isn't even pancake ... not floor by floor pancake anyhow ... that is like dropping a 500lb ball of lead through a tissue ...

call the 500lb ball the top floors, and the piece of tissue the floor below it ... now stack a 1000 sheets of tissue togeather with just enough room for seperation (hell past the tissues to jenga blocks on either side) and the ball will fall through all thousand of those tissues as well ...

yeah sure, each sheet gives some resistance ... but the amount of resistance is paultry compared with the mass of the object falling through it ...

it isn't the greatest analogy, but i don't know much that IS a great analogy for such an event ... i just know that if you think about the top 1\5th of the building plummeting through the bottom floors, it may help you see that it need not have been a controlled demolition to happen ...

Logic Alert.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · August 2007

I don't see how it can happen top to bottom like an avalanche without any (or seemingly very negligible) upwards resistance to slow or even halt the process.

onelongsong · August 2007

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Way to prove me wrong. You essentially just proved everything i was talking about. You feel as though people that dont see things your way are ignorent or blind, or whatever... When really its all perception and opinion. You cant prove your claims anymore than they can... That doesnt mean either of you are stupid or ignorant. Them calling you crazy and a nut job is just as bad... but if you're calling people stupid or ignorant in retaliation, isnt that just as bad?

You are not showing anyone "the light". You are not here to save anyones soul. You are a person, on a message board that should be discussing thoughts, and possibly providing information and a viewpoint. Your mindset of "showing the light" like i said, comes off as a religious zealot who thinks all people who dont believe what they do, are damned to an eternity in hell.

And you discuss an open mind. You know how many people here have an "open mind?" Id say 2. Total. I dont who they are, but im sure they exist. Just because you believe an alternative theory doesnt mean your mind is open. I dont think its really fair to point out others not having an Open Mind when you think anyone who thinks differently than you is "in the darkness."

i couldn't agree more. i like drifting and enjoy talking with him. i respect his opinion and when it clashes with mine; i try to explain why i feel the way i do. when the smoke clears; if his opinion is different; i respect that. maybe he knows more than me or visa versa. that being said; i agree with you. i don't like being preached to when i know the person at the other end is someone on a message board with too much time on their hands and not privy to all the information needed to make a clear and unbiased conclusion.

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I agree that bannings were a bit over the top. Obviously.
However, I think there is something to being able to call someone an asshole, say you want to kick their ass, and move on. A certain level of frustration release i think led to better debate in a lot of cases. Instead, this forum is now being overrun with passive aggressive attacks in nearly every post on peoples intelligence and in some cases, integrity. I've said some nasty things in the past to many posters, and sometimes still feel the desire to.. but im okay with the people ive been pissed off at.... and i think vice versa. But now its... "Its not my fault you are not smart enough to understand" and shit like that.

a little anger can liven up a debate... where as what goes on now just kills it.

once again i agree. i got banned for reporting a bad post. i'm the first to admitt that i'll bait the board by taking a subject to the extreeme to get the discussion moving. it works every time. sometimes it's necessary so we can find the middle ground. as a victim of unfounded personal attacks; i do see the need for banning at times. when facts are twisted to support someones agenda; that person has no place here. but calling someone an arsehole is real life. someone here almost got banned for calling someone thick. yet as long as you don't direct it at someone; you can use the worst language you can think up. i can see banning for threats; but for talking in real life conversation?
the best debates here are the heated ones. we find middle ground and usually find that either both sides can be right; or neither side is absolutely right.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · August 2007

mookie9999 wrote:

Logic Alert.

What are you a myna bird? I can read...

mookie9999 · August 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What are you a myna bird? I can read...

Polly Wanna...

RolandTD20Kdrummer · August 2007

mookie9999 wrote:

Polly Wanna...

Cracker?

onelongsong · August 2007

spiral out wrote:

I was mearly asking the question to ascertain if they did anything to educate themselves on something other than wasting so much time on insulting people who don't see things the way they do.

But while i am answering you what you have said about facts and ignoring some could be turned around on people who believe everything the media throws at them. What makes the media loving folk so right?

What conspiracy are you talking about? Is propaganda a conspiracy?

i'm the first to say ignore the media. when politically active; the press was told what i wanted them to tell the public. that is where propaganda comes in. propaganda is a means to accomplish an agenda. using a wild analogy; lets say you read that your community (block) was to be condemned to build a sewage plant. those people would be inspired to take a stand. that is propaganda. modified pictures posted on the internet to support an agenda is only those who seek to keep discontent at a high level. anyone can build a website and anyone can twist the truth. quite frankly; you'll never know the truth about a lot of things. but here's the secret; by you searching for the truth it distracts you from what [they] really don't want you to see.
when you think the trick is happening; it's already done.

spiral out · August 2007

onelongsong wrote:

i'm the first to say ignore the media. when politically active; the press was told what i wanted them to tell the public. that is where propaganda comes in. propaganda is a means to accomplish an agenda. using a wild analogy; lets say you read that your community (block) was to be condemned to build a sewage plant. those people would be inspired to take a stand. that is propaganda. modified pictures posted on the internet to support an agenda is only those who seek to keep discontent at a high level. anyone can build a website and anyone can twist the truth. quite frankly; you'll never know the truth about a lot of things. but here's the secret; by you searching for the truth it distracts you from what [they] really don't want you to see.
when you think the trick is happening; it's already done.

Hmm interesting as i have said before i don't really get my info from the web at the moment, i am more of a book person. What i'm reading up on is past anyway.

If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?

onelongsong · August 2007

spiral out wrote:

Hmm interesting as i have said before i don't really get my info from the web at the moment, i am more of a book person. What i'm reading up on is past anyway.

If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?

the media is for the sheep. life is too short. go out and live. make your own decisions. life follows logical progression. if it isn't logical; it probably isn't true. if bush put the 9/11 attack together in 8 months the man is a genius. if people were able to sneek in and cut support beams for an implosion without anyone seeing that's incredable. we should build churches in his honor. most importantly; if you found out the one person responsable; how would that effect your life? how would your life be better? i've done more in 51 years then most people do in 2 lifetimes. i only concern myself with what effects me and my life. i have the time to prove theories myself and i make my decisions based on that. i could be wrong or i could be right. but being wrong or right doesn't effect my life. i could spend days researching every theory but in the end i'll never get that time back. just as i'll never get back the time i spend at this bloody computer. be aware of what happens around you; but don't forget to live.

godpt3 · August 2007

onelongsong wrote:

the media is for the sheep. life is too short. go out and live. make your own decisions. life follows logical progression. if it isn't logical; it probably isn't true. if bush put the 9/11 attack together in 8 months the man is a genius. if people were able to sneek in and cut support beams for an implosion without anyone seeing that's incredable. we should build churches in his honor. most importantly; if you found out the one person responsable; how would that effect your life? how would your life be better?

There are basically two breeds on conspiracy theorists: Those who believe that there's more out there than we're being told, those who are so unhinged from reality that they are probably DSM IV certifiable. And there's a difference between believing that there is more out there than the government is telling us, and believing that the government was in on the plot. History tells us that there's usually alot the government isn't telling us, but what the government usually is trying to conceal isn't some massive conspiracy, but rather, their own incompetence.

And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.

godpt3 · August 2007

spiral out wrote:

If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?

Secrecy breeds conspiracy theorists, and the rantings of crazed theorists only serve to further obfuscate the truth, which is usually much more mundane than we care to admit. It's a vicious cycle, but one that's very effective.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · August 2007

godpt3 wrote:

And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.

Interesting little conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory you have there.

gue_barium · August 2007

godpt3 wrote:

There are basically two breeds on conspiracy theorists: Those who believe that there's more out there than we're being told, those who are so unhinged from reality that they are probably DSM IV certifiable. And there's a difference between believing that there is more out there than the government is telling us, and believing that the government was in on the plot. History tells us that there's usually alot the government isn't telling us, but what the government usually is trying to conceal isn't some massive conspiracy, but rather, their own incompetence.

And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.

Conspiracy theorists are as dangerous as what?

For one thing, there is no conspiracy theory. The attacks on 9/11 were conspired. Period. "Conspiracy theory" is a convenient tag mainly contrived by the mainstream press to edge doubt in the minds of their followship. Doubt, in dishonest press, can be a form of fear, or mystery. It can create more followship. You know, "there is reasonable doubt here, what happens next?" It's an old formula. You shouldn't buy into it.

gue_barium · August 2007

gue_barium wrote:

Conspiracy theorists are as dangerous as what?

For one thing, there is no conspiracy theory. The attacks on 9/11 were conspired. Period. "Conspiracy theory" is a convenient tag mainly contrived by the mainstream press to edge doubt in the minds of their followship. Doubt, in dishonest press, can be a form of fear, or mystery. It can create more followship. You know, "there is reasonable doubt here, what happens next?" It's an old formula. You shouldn't buy into it.

Q: I'm not sure I follow.
A: I know, the whole framework is convoluted to the point of non-language.
Q: The framework of what?
A: Conspiracy.
Q: In what way?
A: When you mention conspiracy now, regarding events regarding 9/11, it is a predetermined definition. It isn't any real definition at all.

godpt3 · August 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Interesting little conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory you have there.

my favorite conspiracy theory: There is/was a longstanding belief that Yuri Gagarin was NOT the first man in space. What happened was, there were apparently radio transmissions detected by America, which indicated that the Russians had a man in space... one who wasn't Yuri Gagarin, and who apparently didn't make if home safely. When, in fact, what it was was simply a test flight of the spacecraft with a tape recorder onboard to test the communications systems. The russians kept much of their space program secret for a very long time, mostly for surprisingly mundane reasons.

Before Gagarin and Glenn, the international group that dealt with aerospace records (highest, fastest, farthest, etc.) set out some rules for "who is the first man in space." One of those rules was that the astronaut basically had to land in the same spacecraft he took off in.

Now, the Russians didn't splashdown in the ocean, but rather on land (which can be VERY bad news if you're a pilot.) So to solve this potential problem, the first Russian astronauts all ejected from their capsules before they actually impacted. But, according to the rules, you had to land IN your spacecraft, which meant that, merely on a technicality, the Russians would be disqualified and America would forever have the first man to return safely from space. So, to save face, and the history books, the Russians kept details of their programs secret.

It wasn't until a former mission controller from Houston, James Oberg, befriended some of his russian counterparts during training for the joint U.S.-Russian mission in 1975 that the truth began to finally come out.

godpt3 · August 2007

gue_barium wrote:

Q: I'm not sure I follow.
A: I know, the whole framework is convoluted to the point of non-language.
Q: The framework of what?
A: Conspiracy.
Q: In what way?
A: When you mention conspiracy now, regarding events regarding 9/11, it is a predetermined definition. It isn't any real definition at all.

um, excuse me... would you please stop muttering to yourself, it's disturbing the rest of the patients.

godpt3 · August 2007

gue_barium wrote:

Conspiracy theorists are as dangerous as what?

Hardcore theorists are just as, in not more so, dangerous than religious fanatics.

If the 9/11 Conspiracy theories are ever proven?

Comments

Categories