Looniest Of All 911 Conspiracy Theories

mcstites · Mar 3, 2018

numan said:
How is anyone, including you, to either definitively prove or disprove such claims until the government makes a thorough disclosure of the "evidence"? They could settle all questions about the 757 just by releasing the videos which they confiscated with amazing rapidity minutes after the Pentagon explosion. After all these years, they still haven't released them.

Black boxes? A subject of much controversy. Bodies of the flight crew? They have claimed only to have identified DNA, but they have not released the "evidence" to the public! The engines? Much controversy about that, too. "Evidence" again is not permitted to be examined by independent investigators.

Like any sensible person, I do not trust anything that governments claim---not without independent confirmation. Then there are the vast mass of uncritical thinkers who are deeply afraid to consider that their authority figures are lying to them, and become irrationally angry when that authority is questioned in any fundamental way.

The Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory claims that not only the fuselage went through that 16-foot hole, but also the entire bulk of that enormous plane---including those two heavy, very large engines!

Everyone acknowledges how sturdy was the side of the Pentagon where the supposed plane hit: is it not strange, then, that it collapsed 30 minutes after the impact --- for no apparent reason? (That phrase, "for no apparent reason," should achieve official recognition as the leitmotiv for all of 9/11)

If my arguments are faulty, then a fortiori so are yours---since you do not make arguments, only assertions!

The government has consistently destroyed evidence, and refuses to release to the public what evidence remains.

Most of the problems connected with 9/11 must necessarily lack definitive settlement until that happens. For you to say that such-and-such is definitively settled is simply untrue.
.

Some time ago, I asked you to produce one government document, any government, which agreed with your conspiracy theory. So far none.

How about producing one document from a reputable professional organization which supports your conspiracy theory? I am talking about an organization which existed prior to 911, not one created after 911.

numan · Mar 3, 2018

'
911---THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL

Once upon a time there were 19 Magical Jihadists from a faraway land.

These Magical Jihadists used enchanted box cutters to terrify 8 military-trained professional airline pilots. These pilots were so fearful of the enchanted box cutters, all 8 of them allowed the Jihadists to fly the four commercial aircraft loaded with innocent passengers. Then the Magical Jihadists chanted a secret verse from their Koran making all four planes disappear from the Air Traffic Control monitors. Now they could fly all around the mighty USA air defense system, completely unseen and unbothered, for almost 2 hours.
CHAPTER ONE: 26 amazing facts about the attacks on 9-11 that have never been correctly reported, or just completely ignored by the mainstream media. See outtakes of unguarded and unscripted live interviews and videos occurring immediately after the “attacks”, which were broadcast only once, never to be rebroadcast or discussed again.

CHAPTER TWO: Credible individuals that have come forward to expose the government’s flimsy lies about the murderous attacks on 9-11, and by so doing; they put their careers, their lives, and their families at grave risk. These are brave actions selflessly taken by truly courageous patriots.

.

Ralph47 · Mar 3, 2018

numan said:
'
911---THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL

.

mcstites · Mar 3, 2018

numan said:
'
911---THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL

.

If your theories are correct, there must be reputable professional organizations which agree with you. The SAE, the Society of Aeronautical Engineers, The Royal Aeronautics Society, etc, etc.... There are probably thousands of such organizations with hundreds of thousands of members. Maybe millions of members.

Ralph47 · Mar 3, 2018

mcstites said:
If your theories are correct, there must be reputable professional organizations which agree with you. The SAE, the Society of Aeronautical Engineers, The Royal Aeronautics Society, etc, etc.... There are probably thousands of such organizations with hundreds of thousands of members. Maybe millions of members.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

numan said:
'
911---THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL
.

Neither of us has the capability to gather the data and make any kind of rational decision about 911. We have to rely on someone else to gather the vast amount of data and come to a conclusion.

You rely on every kook who crawls out of the woodwork who has an anti-US attitude. If he hates he US, he has to be right. That is my opinion of what I have seen coming out of you so far.

I prefer to rely on what I would call established organizations staffed by experts. These organizations have been around for hundreds of years and their reputation for good work is well established. For example, in this case I would look towards professional organization who have expertise in building construction, aircraft manufacture and organizations who have expertise in crash analysis and explosions. I know of no such organization who believes the events were anything other than terrorists.

I have enough experience in this area to understand that when you have violent events such as explosions and aircraft crashes, not every piece of evidence is going to fit into some neat little niche. Pieces bounce off of each other and other objects and end up getting bent differently than expected and end up in locations other than expected. The trick is not to look at those discounting the theory, but to look whether such an occurence is possible given the violence of the event.

Ralph47 · Mar 4, 2018

mcstites said:
Neither of us has the capability to gather the data and make any kind of rational decision about 911. We have to rely on someone else to gather the vast amount of data and come to a conclusion.

You rely on every kook who crawls out of the woodwork who has an anti-US attitude. If he hates he US, he has to be right. That is my opinion of what I have seen coming out of you so far.

I prefer to rely on what I would call established organizations staffed by experts. These organizations have been around for hundreds of years and their reputation for good work is well established. For example, in this case I would look towards professional organization who have expertise in building construction, aircraft manufacture and organizations who have expertise in crash analysis and explosions. I know of no such organization who believes the events were anything other than terrorists.

I have enough experience in this area to understand that when you have violent events such as explosions and aircraft crashes, not every piece of evidence is going to fit into some neat little niche. Pieces bounce off of each other and other objects and end up getting bent differently than expected and end up in locations other than expected. The trick is not to look at those discounting the theory, but to look whether such an occurence is possible given the violence of the event.

You are both a gentleman and a scholar!

numan · Mar 4, 2018

mcstites said:
I prefer to rely on what I would call established organizations staffed by experts. These organizations have been around for hundreds of years and their reputation for good work is well established

Here we have the difference between people like you and people like me. You trust authority, "experts", and the establishment. I distrust the Establishment (unless supported by the test of passing valid criticism). It is too obvious that the Establishment will stop at nothing to maintain and increase its power --- the proof of that is everywhere for people who are willing to open their eyes. To trust the CIA and the other agencies of the Deep State is as silly as to trust the Soviet KGB.

I repeat: there are elements of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory which are impossible: the almost free-fall collapse of the Twin Towers and the impossible 16-foot entry hole at the Pentagon being caused by a jetliner. ---

.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

numan said:
Here we have the difference between people like you and people like me. You trust authority, "experts", and the establishment.

.

I trust people that have proven track records. Not some nut that just crawled out of the woodwork.

numan · Mar 4, 2018

mcstites said:
I trust people that have proven track records.

Proven track records? --- like the CIA, perhaps?

.

numan · Mar 4, 2018

'
I am most often impressed by the scantiness of most people's knowledge, and their indifference to acquiring new knowledge.

When most people are confronted by new or challenging information, they usually respond by what I call "computer syndrome":

DOES NOT COMPUTE; CLEAR REGISTER; RESUME PROGRAM

The process is all too often accompanied by verbalizations denying the new information which are ridiculously specious and illogical. Everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at it until the register is clear.

Thank goodness this does not happen on this august forum! ---

.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

numan said:
'
I am most often impressed by the scantiness of most people's knowledge, and their indifference to acquiring new knowledge.

When most people are confronted by new or challenging information, they usually respond by what I call "computer syndrome":

DOES NOT COMPUTE; CLEAR REGISTER; RESUME PROGRAM

The process is all too often accompanied by verbalizations denying the new information which are ridiculously specious and illogical. Everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at it until the register is clear.

Thank goodness this does not happen on this august forum!
.

numan said:
Proven track records? --- like the CIA, perhaps?
.

No like all the many other professional organizations in this wide wide world.

I have served on accident investigation boards. The investigations may well involve over a thousand people by the time you include all the various disciplines involved and may go on for months. Yet you, take a look at a very small sampling of data presented by questionable group of people and conclude that everyone else is wrong. That defies all logic.

numan · Mar 4, 2018

mcstites said:
Yet you, take a look at a very small sampling of data presented by questionable group of people....

A questionable group of people? --- like those responsible for that utterly absurd attempt to brainwash people against the facts of 911 at Popular Mechanics magazine --- which you tried to use as support for the Official Wacko Conspiracy theory?

.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

numan said:
A questionable group of people? --- like those responsible for that utterly absurd attempt to brainwash people against the facts of 911 at Popular Mechanics magazine --- which you tried to use as support for the Official Wacko Conspiracy theory?

.

You keep getting your facts wrong. I used the Popular Mechanics magazine as a simple explanation of the myths. That has nothing to do with the many other professional organizations who have not found the official versions wrong.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

Don't you find it a bit strange that of all the structural engineering organizations in the world, US, Canadian, British, etc. etc, none of spoken up and said that it could not have happened that way? Of all the aeronautical engineering organizations? Do you think they are all in on the conspiracy?

numan · Mar 4, 2018

'
I well remember the disinformation hatchet-job with which Popular Mechanics disgraced itself. From beginning to end, that article was filled with lies and faulty "reasoning."

It is a good question to ask: Why did the Media Monopolies expend so much effort in lying about 9/11, if they did not have something to hide?

Final NIST Report on WTC7: Color Me Unconvinced

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) press release:

The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building.

From Popular Mechanics magazine's "celebrated" article:

The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

From the NIST press release:

Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

From the FEMA Report:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Button, button, who's got the button?
.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

I did a googling of a few of your quotes and they come from other than a report put put out by an professional organizaiton. For example: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085

Show me the quotes and the link to the source.

numan · Mar 4, 2018

'
All through this thread McStites makes a number of assumptions that may well be false.

Why assume that there were passengers in the object that hit the Pentagon, and/or that it was Boeing Flight 77?

The US military and intelligence apparatus has ample resources to make a plane and its passengers disappear -- not to mention create spurious DNA "evidence", which, anyway, they have never released to neutral public scrutiny.

The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon hardly present a uniform, consistent picture of events. Some say they saw a Boeing; some say they heard a missile and smelled cordite; some say they saw a plane much smaller than a Boeing.

You should also consider how many things could go wrong if conspirators used a Boeing at the Pentagon. The radar operators who tracked the object which they thought was headed for the Pentagon, assumed that it was a highly manoeuverable military aircraft -- so difficult were the aerial evolutions which it performed.

To hit the Pentagon with a Boeing would be extremely difficult -- some highly trained pilots think it would be impossible -- especially if the plane were remotely controlled. The whole scheme might fail disastrously if there were the slightest error. It would be far, far safer to use a missile, cruise missile, or some manoeuverable small plane, and then fake the evidence. ---

.

mcstites · Mar 4, 2018

numan said:
'
All through this thread McStites makes a number of assumptions that may well be false.

Why assume that there were passengers in the object that hit the Pentagon, and/or that it was Boeing Flight 77?

The US military and intelligence apparatus has ample resources to make a plane and its passengers disappear -- not to mention create spurious DNA "evidence", which, anyway, they have never released to neutral public scrutiny.

The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon hardly present a uniform, consistent picture of events. Some say they saw a Boeing; some say they heard a missile and smelled cordite; some say they saw a plane much smaller than a Boeing.

You should also consider how many things could go wrong if conspirators used a Boeing at the Pentagon. The radar operators who tracked the object which they thought was headed for the Pentagon, assumed that it was a highly manoeuverable military aircraft -- so difficult were the aerial evolutions which it performed.

To hit the Pentagon with a Boeing would be extremely difficult -- some highly trained pilots think it would be impossible -- especially if the plane were remotely controlled. The whole scheme might fail disastrously if there were the slightest error. It would be far, far safer to use a missile, cruise missile, or some manoeuverable small plane, and then fake the evidence. ---

.

Show me one good documented quote.

Ralph47 · Mar 4, 2018

mcstites said:
Show me one good documented quote.

Yeah! We dare you! :giggle:

Looniest Of All 911 Conspiracy Theories

Similar threads