Loose Change: 9/11 Conspiracy?

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Loose Change: 9/11 Conspiracy?
Author Message
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 10:40 Quote
harriieee wrote:
paradox00 wrote:
2012=northamerican union and amero.

I'm holding you to that one. It'll be funny when it doesn't happen.

LZ, the rate of release is crucial. TNT releases all of that energy at once, hence the explosion. If the energy is released more slowly by burning, which it was, the effect will be massively diminished than all of it in a fraction of a second.

I know but what I'm trying to do is put it in perspective. It had so much energy to burn it could easily weaken steal and melt aluminum.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 10:50 Quote
I thought this pic was appropriate for this thread...

photo

4025088
flag harriieee
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:05 Quote
I don't buy many conspiracy theories. There were just so many anomalies on 9/11, more than I've ever seen before. So many factors that could, if considered as an individual event, be seen as bad planning/misunderstanding/coincidence. But there are loads of small things that just seem to be amiss. Loads of them.

And Vince you've just applied Occam's Razor wrong.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:10 Quote
harriieee wrote:
I don't buy many conspiracy theories. There were just so many anomalies on 9/11, more than I've ever seen before. So many factors that could, if considered as an individual event, be seen as bad planning/misunderstanding/coincidence. But there are loads of small things that just seem to be amiss. Loads of them.

And Vince you've just applied Occam's Razor wrong.

How many times have you seen a 767 crash into some of the multiple towers?
flag ezekiel
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:24 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
harriieee wrote:
I don't buy many conspiracy theories. There were just so many anomalies on 9/11, more than I've ever seen before. So many factors that could, if considered as an individual event, be seen as bad planning/misunderstanding/coincidence. But there are loads of small things that just seem to be amiss. Loads of them.

And Vince you've just applied Occam's Razor wrong.

How many times have you seen a 767 crash into some of the multiple towers?

Obviously an event like this has never happened verbatim before, but in the world of catastrophes there are an amazing amount of questions that will never be answered.
flag harriieee
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:35 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
harriieee wrote:
I don't buy many conspiracy theories. There were just so many anomalies on 9/11, more than I've ever seen before. So many factors that could, if considered as an individual event, be seen as bad planning/misunderstanding/coincidence. But there are loads of small things that just seem to be amiss. Loads of them.

And Vince you've just applied Occam's Razor wrong.

How many times have you seen a 767 crash into some of the multiple towers?

You've just missed the point in splendid fashion. One or two screwups/unanswered questions I could understand. A multitude of various 'coincidences' completely unrelated to each other - unscrambled jets, people told not to fly, not one plane crew punched in the hijacking code, none of the four hijacked flights had more than 50% of capacity people on board, firefighters describing 'controllable fires' in the South Tower, Building 7 collapsing when no steel building has ever collapsed due to fires alone before.... that's just a selection.

Like I said, one or two anomalies I could understand. This many, and I start to wonder if something else isn't going on.
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:36 Quote
The shear amount of ignorance and the blind willingness of some people to accept bullshit as truth from any whackjob that agrees with their absurd conspiracy theory is actually starting to make my head hurt.

How you people that think this is a conspiracy can consider yourself free-thinkers is beyond me. Any idiot in the second grade can rationally examine the circumstances and logically arrive at the conlcusion that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a conspiracy this large to have been successful. It's very basic really... forget the science and anything else that ought to be enough, the simple number of people involved precludes the possibility of the secret being kept this long.

The fact that you guys want to attribute this incredibly well orchestrated and perfectly executed plot to possibly the most incompetent leaders that the world, or at least the US, has ever seen is mind numbing. Bush says shit like "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things" or "We're going to have the best educated American people in the world!" or "I believe we're on an irreversable trend towards more freedom and democracy - but that could change."... while Cheney cant tell the difference between a quail and a Texas attorney...

Yet, you actually think these men were capable of orchestrating the greatest conspiracy the world has ever seen?
flag harriieee
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:40 Quote
You've just demonstrated a classic fallacy of argument: Straw Man. You're imputing to me something which I never said. I'm not propounding conspiracy theories. I'm pointing out the individual anomalies and saying that it's strange.

Let's look at the evidence, not jump to conclusions, as you just did.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:42 Quote
"Like I said, one or two anomalies I could understand. This many, and I start to wonder if something else isn't going on."

you fail.
flag harriieee
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:45 Quote
No I don't bro. This is painful, I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this.

Me: "There's a lot of anomalies, I don' think the official story completely adds up."

You: "I can't believe you actually think that the US Government orchestrated these attacks! You're so f*cking stupid believing all these crackpot conspiracy theories!"

That's called the Straw Man fallacy. Giving me views I haven't stated, jumping to conclusions.

I don't know what to think, but I don't trust the official story. That doesn't mean I believe that it's a step towards a world government or that Bush and Cheny orchestrated it all, that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, etc etc etc ad infinitum, that you have automatically assumed that I think.

You're impossible to argue rationally against for this reason. Don't worry, it goes for about 95% of the human race.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 11:51 Quote
harriieee wrote:
No I don't bro. This is painful, I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this.

Me: "There's a lot of anomalies, I don' think the official story completely adds up."

You: "I can't believe you actually think that the US Government orchestrated these attacks! You're so f*cking stupid believing all these crackpot conspiracy theories!"

That's called the Straw Man fallacy. Giving me views I haven't stated, jumping to conclusions.

I don't know what to think, but I don't trust the official story. That doesn't mean I believe that it's a step towards a world government or that Bush and Cheny orchestrated it all, that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, etc etc etc ad infinitum, that you have automatically assumed that I think.

You're impossible to argue rationally against for this reason. Don't worry, it goes for about 95% of the human race.

When you keep bringing up questions about 9/11 on a 9/11 conspiracy thread and then say that things don't add up I think that it's fair to infer that you are a conspiracy theorist. It's like looking at smoke coming out of a house and thinking that it's a house fire... It could just be a smoke machine or a bunch of high idiots.
flag harriieee
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 12:00 Quote
Yup, impossible to rationally argue against.

I'll say it one more time. Pointing out anomalies is not the same as providing an alternate theory.
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 12:11 Quote
harriieee wrote:
You've just demonstrated a classic fallacy of argument: Straw Man. You're imputing to me something which I never said. I'm not propounding conspiracy theories. I'm pointing out the individual anomalies and saying that it's strange.

Let's look at the evidence, not jump to conclusions, as you just did.
You mean the way you just jumped to the conclusion that my statement was directed at you?

...and for the record, this
bigquotesThis many, and I start to wonder if something else isn't going on.
Is essentially the same thing as "propounding conspiracy theories".. just without manning up enough to actually put forth your theory of choice. Just because you'll only allude to your belief through questioning the truth doesnt mean you arent effectively backing those beliefs.
flag harriieee
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 13:00 Quote
f*ck me guys, you're really not making my life easy here.

Example.

A scientist puts forward a theory. Let's say a theory of everything. It's pretty tight, and it's the frontrunner in the theory pool.

Another scientist looks at the theory, and points out some problems with it. These things don't add up. There seems to be a few problems with this theory. I wonder if there's another theory that can explain this better. That might be the real theory, who knows?

Does this automatically mean that the scientist who sees flaws in the first theory has another theory himself? No. Is there any possible way you can still fail to understand this?

Thanks for attributing it for me not being man enough. You're right, it does take some serious balls to spout nonsense on the internet. I guess I'll come back when I'm brave enough to put myself out there right?

Bottom line, I think f*ck all this belief. Some people believe that it's all one giant conspiracy. Others believe that these conspiracy theories are bullshit. I'm sick and tired of this belief. I don't believe that it was as we're told. Nor do I believe that the government orchestrated it. Why? Because believing doesn't do anything. My opinion isn't worth anything if there's no evidence... and from what I can see, there were (probably) too many coincidences for all to be as it seems, but no concrete evidence for it.

Happy yet? Or shall I man up some more?
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 at 13:11 Quote
You are correct in saying that questioning it alone doesnt allude to another alternative... However, when you add the "wonder if something else isnt going on", that becomes a clear allusion to an alternative theory... and I never said you werent "man enough", I said you werent "manning up"... there's a huge difference. I have no idea what kind of man you are but, you werent manning up and stating your theory just alluding to it.

Now, you've pretty clearly stated what you believe and I can fully respect that. Much moreso than most of the "believers" that have been posting actually. I can fully understand and relate to how a rational man could question the things that happened that day. Where I lose it is when these same so called rational people take it all the way to a government conspiracy without using their supposed rationality to evaluate just how unlikely that actually is.

As for beliefs, that's really all we'll ever have on this topic. Even if you get two demolitions experts, one may believe that theres signs of a controlled demo while the other believes that nothing seems to indicate a planned demo at all. All the supposed facts that lead to a conspiracy have been disproven by very reputable professionals in their given areas. So, at least in my opinion, that kills the conspiracy theory dead... but still leaves open the possiblity for a logical rational person to question the considerable circumstances surrounding the day.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.013558
Mobile Version of Website