1. Scorp3j

    Scorp3j New Member

    Would you believe there are still people who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and are still pushing their case 11 years later? I was shocked to hear this.. I also recently encountered someone who firmly believes the whole thing was a huge conspiracy. So I started digging for information to counter his claims, and you wouldn't believe the wealth of documentation and evidence I found. And he's still not convinced... . My question is...WHY??.

    Admin note: the above is a reworking of the first paragraph of http://www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=63 and might just be trolling - but it's still an interesting question.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  3. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk New Member

    I still encounter people on forums who still think that NO planes were used.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    Well you can read Lees rambles, and see that he does not understand at all, the difference between weight and momentum, or understands the idea of Kinetic Energy.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    At the risk of offending people, I think that the Peter Principle is in play here. Lee is obviously very smart, but the concepts he discussing are JUST on the other side of his experience and expertise.

    You see a lot of videos on YouTube that are like "PROOF! Not a progressive collapse!!", and then some simple math that is mathematically correct, but as some point includes incorrect assumptions. However the person writing it it is totally unable to understand where he went wrong.

    By inserting incorrect assumptions, or fallacious reasoning, you can prove anything:

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy

    I would be unsurprised if there are people who think that the above "proof" is actually correct, and evidence of the oneness of the universe, or that we are living in the Matrix.

    The vast majority of people do not understand the basic algebra, let alone the fallacy within, so either way it's pretty meaningless. But if someone is at the cusp of understanding - where they can follow the algebra, but not spot the fallacy, then that's when they get into trouble.

    On top of all that, you have the distrust and suspicion factor. Here's a proof of 1=2, but you can't understand why it's wrong. All the people telling you that it's wrong are establishment academic types, they don't want to jeopardize their cushy jobs, so they stick with the official story. So you can only trust your own judgement, and the judgement of people who have the same judgement as yourself.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  7. Scorp3j

    Scorp3j New Member

    Why do Conspiracy Theorist jump from one belief to another, without ever admitting that they are wrong, and then refuse to look at other evidence? I talked to a Conspiracy Theorist a couple of months ago and we talked about Thermite. I told him Thermite or Nano- Thermite was not an explosive but an accelerant...look it up!..I said!...he said NO!!!...

    [EX=http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/]On July 27, 2011, Niels Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres).

    He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives. His “conservative” estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. But let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to put in place unnoticed.[/EX]
  8. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    ha, 143,000 tons is even more than a full size Nimitz class carrier in terms of weight.
  9. Spongebob

    Spongebob Active Member

    This can only lead us to the final explanation: DEW (Directed Energy Weapons).

    It had to be, the way the steel evaporated?

    Judy Wood I believe has more than proven this to be the final answer to the 9/11 riddle...

    My head hurts...
  10. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Astute people with well-functioning internal B.S. detectors know 9/11 was an inside job, they're just at a loss to figure out and explain how. It's been covered up that expertly. That's why so many people gravitate towards controlled demolition theories, even though the inside job hypothesis is not dependent on such theories.
  11. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    Of course, its par for the course. Conclusion first, then evidence later.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Why, are you one of those people who can never tell when he's being lied to, manipulated, misled, or shaken down?

    Used car salesmen have a name for people like that - "suckers".
  13. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    Yeah, I have seen who is typically doing the lying, and its those who promote these conspiracies. And I am not a sucker for them. Whether its chemtrails, 9/11 trooferism, or that we are all going to the FEMA camps tomorrow....its one lie after another.
  14. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Oh please. Nobody does more lying, engages in more deception, and is more duplicitous than the U.S. government, but I bet you believe whatever they told you about their role in the 9/11 attacks. You're probably the type of person who would have been around in the 1960s telling conspiracy theorists of the day that there was no such thing as MK-ULTRA, Project SHAD, COINTELPRO, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Operation Northwoods plans, or Gulf of Tonkin phantom attacks. I bet you would have called all those people "nuts", "wackos", or "twoofers" too.
  15. Billzilla

    Billzilla Senior Member

    PMSL, let me guess, you aren't a scientist?
  16. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Actually astute people with well functioning BS detectors know BS when they see it - and it usually comes in the form of someone "knowing" something is true and being unable to explain it or even provide credible evidence for it.

    It also comes in the form of people saying that the verifiable evidence that does actually explain the "something" is actually a cover up.

    I'm pretty happy with my internal BS detector - and is went berserk when I read you post!! :D
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Why? Can scientists not be wrong, misled, corrupt, or engage in deception?

    Do you regard scientists as infallible gods, or something?
  18. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    How do you truly know the evidence you've been provided with by the government is comprehensive, credible, and unmolested? How do you truly know the investigation was legitimate and thorough?
  19. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    Ah still par for the course. Here come the laundry list, and bringing up your credibility of the US federal government, as if thats the source of own information and science. I did not realize that any of those, took away from the lies of the 9/11 troofer movement promoters and their lies. Or are you saying that if the US government lies, then its okay the 9/11 movement to have its lies?

    Conspiracy about the Gulf of Tonkin? That certainly was not some conspiracy.
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    The same way I look at the "evidence" provided by wingnut conspiracy theorists and decide that it is BS, unbelievable and concocted.

    Or the evidence provided by anyone else - I ask myself a heap of questions - is it consistent, does it fit known facts, does it make sense, is it likely, does it fit with whatever knowledge I have of other areas (eg physics, chemistry, psychology), do the counter arguments do a better job or make more sense, what is hte general credibility of hte people who lend themselves to the information (this last especially in areas where I do not have a great dal of knowledge), etc.

    How else would you decide such things for yourself?

    It is not sufficient to say "The Govt keeps secrets and does bad things therefore this must have been an inside job" - because the opposite is also true - there are lots of things the Govt does that are not secret and are good - why can't this be one of them?

    BTW I am not American, and do not live in the USA, so I do not have a particular beef with believing or disbelieving your Govt's thoughts, reports and politics.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Why, are you saying that if the 9/11 truth movement lies, then its okay for the U.S. government to have its lies?

    Wait, are you claiming that the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened just the way the government said in 1964? That a phantom attack wasn't used as a justification for U.S. escalation in Vietnam?

    Not according to Robert McNamara:

  22. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    What does the government do that's good? It has no money to do anything "good" without stealing it from the people first.

    If a Mafia extortion racket takes money from the people in the neighborhood and then uses it to do "good", is it really doing any good?
  23. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    What about the real part of the attacks in Tonkin?

    The 9/11 troofer movement claims all kinds of things about 9/11 are lies, and often they are the ones that are lying. So far when it comes to 9/11 the conspiracy promoters are the ones who have a never ending number of versions.

    And no, the "The government lied before so thats proof of 9/11" does not wash.
  24. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    What about them? What about the fake attacks that never happened that the government lied about?

    How do you those truthers who you claim are lying aren't just COINTELPRO agents or people on your side just trying to discredit the truth movement?

    Straw man logical fallacy.
  25. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    There were real attacks at Gulf of Tonkin

    Oh, so now we are at both the government lies, and when we have falsehoods coming from the Troofers, thats just secretly the government too!

    Or, just maybe these people started with the conclusion first, and then looked for whatever think think fits. Which is why we have holograms, pods, secret unmanned planes, nuclear bombs, thermite, energy beams from space and the towers secretly filled with explosives. Hard to imagine how they pulled off all of that.

    How does the government doing disagreeable things decades ago, then become concrete evidence today?
  26. Billzilla

    Billzilla Senior Member

    Of course not and I didn't say or infer that.
    I did infer that you and the people you mentioned are demonstrating a massive logical fallacy.
  27. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    And how about the phantom second attack that didn't happen that our government lied about to justify U.S. escalation in Vietnam? Are you going to keep making excuses for that?

    Maybe they are, you don't know. After all, the criminal government you are defending here does have a long history of infiltrating protest groups and pockets of dissent.

    That's no more crazy than believing a bunch of cavemen pulled it off unaided.

    How does a government that has been doing criminal, disagreeable things for decades get you to believe whatever they tell you?
  28. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Which logical fallacy is that?
  29. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    You still have not explained how Gulf of Tonkin is some kind of conspiracy. Lots of mistakes are made when people have itchy fingers. Is the "Battle of Los Angeles" also a government conspiracy too?

    The was combat in the first attack of the Gulf of Tonkin. The 2nd one was most likely not real, but it was after the fact that people figured out what it was. Again, how is this a conspiracy, and evidence of 9/11. And why did you leave out that there was actual combat, which led to everyone being on a combat footing when they thought another one happened?

    You are bringing up things that are not about evidence, its about your suspicions. You still have not given any evidence at all, just your feelings that something happened a certain way.

    Can the 9/11 attack have used all of those like nuclear bombs, thermite, space based death rays, rigged explosives, UAVs, secret switched airplanes? How can all of that have been done?

    Why do you think that none of us know anything except for the government telling us? You all use that for anytime someone is skeptical of anything, its like some textbook robotic response "Oh you just believe what your government tells you".

    I could argue that you just believe whatever conspiracy peddlers tell you.
  30. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Why would I need to explain how the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" is some kind of conspiracy when I never said it was a conspiracy?

    That's great, but why lie about it later? Why not just admit to the American people the second attack never happened? Why use it to galvanize the American people into supporting a phony, unnecessary war? Why do you keep making excuses for government lies?

    Never heard of it.

    Straw man. I never said the Gulf of Tonkin incident is evidence of U.S. government involvement in 9/11.

    Because the combat isn't as important as the government LYING about it in the aftermath to justify a pointless war.

    So? Your evidence, provided by the corporate-owned government and corporate-owned media, has no more credibility than my suspicions.

    The same way a bunch of caveman could have done it all by themselves - in your imagination.

    Because the U.S. government controlled the investigation into the 9/11 attacks. You believe Al-Qaeda's funding, training, and support came from non-U.S. government sources because that's what you've been told and shown evidence of. You believe the U.S. government didn't allow the attacks to occur because that's what government officials have told you.

    You have nothing else to go on.

    So do you. After all, you believe the conspiracy theory about Muslim cavemen planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks without state sponsorship. If you'll believe that, you'll believe in just about anything.
  31. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    Maybe they did have state sponsor from people in the Saudi government? I would not be surprised at all if there were Al Qaeda sympathizers in their royal family. And all Muslims are cavemen? In what way?

    What is impossible about hijacking a plane, or flying one into building? Airport security before 9/11 was quite lax, and policy was to give hijackers their demands.

    If Gulf of Tonkin was not evidence of a conspiracy for 9/11, then why even bring it up?
  32. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Ok, start naming the names of those who you think are the infiltrators. If there are some you know about, who are they? If you don't know who they are, why bring it up?
    Name the names of those who you think have infiltrated the troofers or chemtrail camps, let the chips fall where they may. Bring it on.
  33. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Just the same, maybe Al-Qaeda did have a state sponsor from the people in the U.S. government? I would not be surprised at all if there were Al-Qaeda supporters in the neo-con family, who desperately needed a new Pearl Harbor event to justify pursuing their Project for a New American Century.

    Nice straw man. No, really.

    What is impossible about the U.S. government conducting a false flag attack within the borders of the United States by getting a bunch of Muslim patsies to do it for them?

    It's evidence of the government misleading the American people to pursue an agenda that doesn't represent the best interests of the American people, but the interests of big corporations.
  34. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member


    But, but, but...
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Neither of these is impossible. The first seems to have a lot more evidence supporting it. There seems to be very little justification, and an enormous amount of risk, for the second.
  36. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Of course the first would have more evidence supporting it, as U.S. government agencies led the investigation into the events surrounding 9/11. In other words, if a jewelry were to be robbed and the local Mafia was trusted with the investigation and to bring the perpetrators to justice, do you honestly believe they'd conduct an honest investigation and release any evidence to the public that shows they were responsible for the heist, assuming they truly were responsible? Of course not. They'd simply frame somebody else, perhaps a competing Mafia family in another town.

    The only evidence you would be allowed to see would point in the direction of somebody else other than the local Mafia being responsible.

    I disagree with you on the justification part, but partially agree with you on the risk part. Conducting false flag attacks is and always has been very risky throughout history, but that hasn't always stopped various parties from conducting them, including governments. Huge risk usually equals huge reward, and the reward for tricking the American people into believing the 9/11 official story is an incredibly audacious and aggressive foreign policy throughout the world (phony War on Terror) and a burgeoning police state at home (Patriot act, militarized police, TSA, Department of Fatherland Security, widespread surveillance, etc...).
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Don't you think that the 9/11 caper was a tad bit over the top though, for a false flag? Surely they could just have had the same effect with a few very large bombs at sporting events?

    Huge risk does NOT equal huge reward, on average you'll fail. You really think the illuminati would plot for hundreds of years, then blow it all on one risky job?
  38. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    Over the top? No, not necessarily. Not if you take into account what it was designed to result in - the rapid transformation of American foreign and domestic policy and life in the United States as we know it. A lesser attack might not have had the same effect on the American people.

    Bombs at sporting events may have been equally effective, but that's difficult to determine. That type of attack, an attack focused on the leisure/recreational pursuits of the American people (sporting events, Disney World, shopping malls, etc...), might be the next false flag.

    This assumes that a 9/11 false flag attack was risky to the perpetrators within our government, security, intelligence, and defense contractor complex. We could be wrong about that. In reality, this operation may have been a piece of cake for them with little risk of exposure, even if it failed.

    Sure they would, if it would push their agenda forward or help them break psychological barriers that exist within the general public they control. War is and always has been the best means of quickly altering the lifestyle and outlook of a people.
  39. firepilot

    firepilot Senior Member

    But again all you have is your suspicions, your imagination, and your worldview.

    You have not brought specific evidence to support your claims, just your own speculation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I mean anyone can just bring up some previous misdeed, or some mistake in the fog of war, and claim that is therefore evidence of something today. And anyone can dream up some plot, but just because you can dream it up, does not mean it actually happened.

    If you have evidence of mini nukes, death rays, beams from space, switched airplanes, unmanned planes, etc etc that make up 9/11 conspiracy lore, then give specific points to address.
  40. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 New Member

    While all you have is what the government and corporate shills in the mainstream media have programmed you to believe.

    Compared to what you've got, I'll take my suspicions, imagination, and worldview any day of the week.

    Great then. Where's your extraordinary evidence that Al-Qaeda was working independently on 9/11? Where's your extraordinary evidence that the U.S. government did everything they could possibly do to foil the attacks? Where's your extraordinary evidence that Al-Qaeda's funding came from non-U.S. government sources?

    Got anything I can look at?

    The same thing goes for your official 9/11 conspiracy theory that Al-Qaeda "did it" and "did it all by themselves". Just because the U.S. government can dream it up, does not mean it actually happened.

    You have no more evidence for your conspiracy theory than I do mine. All you have is what the lying, criminal U.S. government has told you to believe, based on the limited evidence they have chosen to let you see. Compared to that, believing in nonsense like mini nukes and death rays isn't nearly as crazy.

Share This Page