Looniest Of All 911 Conspiracy Theories

Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#1
Looniest Of All 911
Conspiracy Theories


One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th - and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs - is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they 'hate our freedoms.'

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell....

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organising them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA - the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
.
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#4
'
When dealing with a complex matter like the "Official" Wacko Conspiracy Theory, I think it is wise to divide it into roughly three components:

1. - Things which are impossible.

2. - Things which are improbable -- especially groups of things which, taken together, are highly improbable.

3. - Things which are merely unlikely.

If there is even one impossible thing, then the Official Conspiracy Theory is wrong.

Now it is quite impossible that the World Trade Centers could have collapsed at free-fall speeds without a little help along the way. By impossible, I mean physically impossible! It defies the Law of Conservation of Momentum. If the bottom portions of the buildings were still able to resist the collapse of the upper portions, the collapse would have taken considerably longer than it did. The only reasonable hypothesis is that somehow that resistance was negated as the collapse proceeded.

In the case of the Pentagon explosion, the initial hole in the buiding was 16 feet across. It is impossible that a Boeing 757 could have been swallowed up in that hole. The hole is entirely consistent with a rocket or missile hitting the building.

It is impossible that a 757 could have left such a risibly small amount of debris.

It is impossible that the two engines could have vanished with so little trace. They were the largest, sturdiest and heaviest components of the airplane.

Furthermore, if the hypothetical airplane had hit the building, those two engines would have done considerable damage to the fa├žade of the building, or most likely made two additional hole into the interior, at two spots some distance from the main hole. There was not the slightest bit of evidence of damage at those two spots.
.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 4, 2018
401
162
Arkansas
#7
Most conspiracy theories break down when examined in detail. 911 has not.

We have records of when the terrorists entered the US. We know when and where they attended flight schools. We have records and even some photos of them in the airports boarding the airplanes. We have movies of two of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Centers. We have phone calls from people on the aircraft. And now those same terrorists have vanished from the face of the earth. No conspiracy is capable of doing all of that.

And then we have Osama Bin Laden boasting about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-1350687
 
Last edited:
Likes: 2 people
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#8
'
Immediately after the Pentagon explosion: Look at all that debris!



The external entry hole:



What you should have seen:



The released government frames:



Apart from the clear impossibilities which I have outlined, I am agnostic about most matters connected with 911 -- though there are a great many implausibilities connected with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Among many other things, I am agnostic whether an aircraft hit the Pentagon, though I consider it implausible that it was a Boeing 757. The exhaust trail on frames 1 and 2 of the govt. video is more consonant with that of a missile or a missile-like aircraft. Moreover, as can be seen in the other video, a 757 is large enough to have obscured the distant scenery, and that never occurs in the govt. video.

Obviously, the second video grossly distorts the apparent speed of the aircraft. An object moving at 720 km. per hour covers 200 metres per second -- roughly the length of two football fields. What is accurate is that the aircraft appears in only two frames -- the two frames in which the missile exhaust is clearly visible in the govt. video. According to the time signatures on those frames, they were taken some fraction of a second apart, which conforms to the hypothetical speed at which an aircraft might be moving.

The other three frames cover a time interval of three seconds. Why was such a disjointed series of frames released to the public? Just one of many, many questions remaining to be answered.

The eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon attack present a very complex problem. We know how untrustworthy eyewitness testimony is, particularly when it involves an event which is unusual or unexpected. A secret agency, of any government, would have at its beck and call many high-powered psychologists who, over the years would have worked on the problem of how to fool eyewitnesses. The extreme variability in the eyewitness accounts supports the view that their testimony is not to be relied on.

There is one aspect of the media reports that should raise suspicions. If you look at the so-called eyewitness reports in the media, one by one, you will see, in a large proportion of them, a skillful interweaving of reporters' statements which reinforce the Official Conspiracy Theory with very abbreviated quotations from the eyewitnesses, which could be part of a context quite at variance with the Official Theory. The question is: why is this subterfuge necessary?

Here is an example:

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said." - "Hell on Earth." UU World

This eyewitness did not explicitly say that he saw AA Flight 77. His actual testimony is prefaced with the comment by the reporter that "American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car". What the eyewitness actually saw was a "puff of white smoke", which is very interesting [Burning cordite produces white smoke; kerosene, thick black smoke]. One naturally wonders why the reporter did not quote the witness entirely instead of putting words in his mouth that he may never have said.
.
 
Jan 4, 2018
401
162
Arkansas
#9
'
Immediately after the Pentagon explosion: Look at all that debris!



The external entry hole:



What you should have seen:



The released government frames:



Apart from the clear impossibilities which I have outlined, I am agnostic about most matters connected with 911 -- though there are a great many implausibilities connected with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Among many other things, I am agnostic whether an aircraft hit the Pentagon, though I consider it implausible that it was a Boeing 757. The exhaust trail on frames 1 and 2 of the govt. video is more consonant with that of a missile or a missile-like aircraft. Moreover, as can be seen in the other video, a 757 is large enough to have obscured the distant scenery, and that never occurs in the govt. video.

Obviously, the second video grossly distorts the apparent speed of the aircraft. An object moving at 720 km. per hour covers 200 metres per second -- roughly the length of two football fields. What is accurate is that the aircraft appears in only two frames -- the two frames in which the missile exhaust is clearly visible in the govt. video. According to the time signatures on those frames, they were taken some fraction of a second apart, which conforms to the hypothetical speed at which an aircraft might be moving.

The other three frames cover a time interval of three seconds. Why was such a disjointed series of frames released to the public? Just one of many, many questions remaining to be answered.

The eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon attack present a very complex problem. We know how untrustworthy eyewitness testimony is, particularly when it involves an event which is unusual or unexpected. A secret agency, of any government, would have at its beck and call many high-powered psychologists who, over the years would have worked on the problem of how to fool eyewitnesses. The extreme variability in the eyewitness accounts supports the view that their testimony is not to be relied on.

There is one aspect of the media reports that should raise suspicions. If you look at the so-called eyewitness reports in the media, one by one, you will see, in a large proportion of them, a skillful interweaving of reporters' statements which reinforce the Official Conspiracy Theory with very abbreviated quotations from the eyewitnesses, which could be part of a context quite at variance with the Official Theory. The question is: why is this subterfuge necessary?

Here is an example:


.
I have seen and heard all of that previously. One by one they explained the so called discrepancies.

FBI pictures reveal aftermath of 9/11 attack on Pentagon | Daily Mail Online
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 4, 2018
401
162
Arkansas
#12
I don't think you have, really --- or else you would not link to such phony-baloney pictures, which, on the most generous interpretation, you clearly do not understand.
.
Do I claim to understand all the dynamics? No. But I bet I have examined more damage due to explosions than you have. It takes more than a few pictures like you presented to show the whole picture.

Have you found any reputable government agencies which agrees with you? US, Canadian, British, French, German? There must be one out there somewhere that agrees with you or do you think they are all in on the conspiracy.

In addition, one lesson I have learned in failure analysis, is that the analysis has to explain everything or at least, as a minimum, not leave any inconsistencies.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
 
Nov 21, 2017
2,795
57
Behind the 8 ball
#13
I don't think you have, really --- or else you would not link to such phony-baloney pictures, which, on the most generous interpretation, you clearly do not understand.
.
There is no need for "phony-baloney pictures" when reality says it all. :smug:

 
Nov 21, 2017
2,795
57
Behind the 8 ball
#14
I watched it all unfold real-time live from a conference room at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Hard to "fake" a live event!!! :rolleyes:

 
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#15
Have you found any reputable government agencies which agrees with you? US, Canadian, British, French, German? There must be one out there somewhere that agrees with you or do you think they are all in on the conspiracy.
There are not many reputable government agencies --- anywhere ---

However ---

Here are some sites, with links, that indicate just how many serious, responsible people are not satisfied with the "Official" Wacko Conspiracy Theory:

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice

Pilots for 911 Truth

I suppose that it must be comforting to have such religious certainty that you know what happened on 9/11; then you are freed from worry that your government might do to you what they did to the 3000 people who died on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, beyond the behavioural sink of brainwashed America and its colonial outposts, people do not share your absolute conviction that you know the Truth. European and Japanese cabinet ministers and parliamentarians, an Italian president, many, many scholars, journalists and people high up in foreign intelligence establishments have asserted that there is a worm in this particular apple. There are many youtube sites where you can see them interviewed. A view which so many Americans, in their brainwashed ignorance, regard as loony, has become mainstream in the Free World.

Here, almost at random, is an interview on Danish television:

Dr. Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, presenting evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on TV2 GoodMorning Denmark
.
 
Jan 4, 2018
401
162
Arkansas
#16
There are not many reputable government agencies --- anywhere ---
I am not surprised you would have this opinion. It is not hard to find numerous organizations with conspiracy theories. Most are created because of their conspiracy theory rather than being a reputable existing organization which came up with a conspiracy theory. For instance, if you came up with a list of organizations like the the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), etc. you would be a lot more convincing.

The TV and internet is full of conspiracy theories. Pick any subject and you will find conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#17
It is not hard to find numerous organizations with conspiracy theories. Most are created because of their conspiracy theory rather than being a reputable existing organization which came up with a conspiracy theory.

The TV and internet is full of conspiracy theories. Pick any subject and you will find conspiracy theories.
You ask for reputable people. I provide you with reputable people, and then you immediately change the grounds of the debate, blithering that the internet is full of conspiracy theories. How typical is ignoratio elenchi in American "thinking".

The eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon attack present a very complex problem. We know how untrustworthy eyewitness testimony is, particularly when it involves an event which is unusual or unexpected.

Examples:

YOUTUBE: Change Blindness

YOUTUBE: Test Your Awareness:Whodunnit?
.
 
Nov 21, 2017
2,795
57
Behind the 8 ball
#19
You ask for reputable people. I provide you with reputable people, and then you immediately change the grounds of the debate, blithering that the internet is full of conspiracy theories. How typical is ignoratio elenchi in American "thinking".

The eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon attack present a very complex problem. We know how untrustworthy eyewitness testimony is, particularly when it involves an event which is unusual or unexpected.

Examples:

YOUTUBE: Change Blindness

YOUTUBE: Test Your Awareness:Whodunnit?
.
 
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#20
'
Eyewitness testimony is important, but because it is unreliable, it should be backed up by other evidence. I have not mentioned the many reports about explosions at the World Trade Center because it has always seemed to me to be possible that people heard partial collapses or other sounds associated with the tragedy and mistook them for explosions---although the number of such reports and their consistency tend to make me give credence to them.

As for the Pentagon, all that would be needed to settle many questions is for the government to release the videos of the incident which they confiscated immediately after the explosion. They have chosen not to do so.

The supposed wreckage of Flight 77 is notoriously slight in quantity, and there is still enormous controversy concerning what it is and what it means. Because I am not an expert on such matters, I have not mentioned it.

If only other people were as chaste and modest as I am in expressing their opinions!
.