Conspiratorially speaking seeking facts not theory

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

-the people on the planes are dead. doesnt matter how, id like to imagine planted pilots on the 4 planes with gas masks. gas is released, down they go, planes fly into a super high orbit and eject the passengers into space. meanwhile remote control dummy planes fly out of volcano underground lair and are flown into buildings. simple.

But it does matter how, if you're going to play armchair detective. See, for everything to go right in your theory, these people have to be dispatched somehow without anyone else ever finding out about it. What about the cell calls from loved ones before the crashes? We just gonna write those off too, or did the government somehow get some really great voice actors, hijacked their SIMM cards and placed phony calls, too? You can't just pick and choose individual situations if you really want people to think you're not just making shit up--the onus is completely on you to explain how everything just happened to work out flawlessly.

-as for your thousands of eye witness testimonies and experts, anyone has done research into this has seen the responders talking about explosions in the WTC, so you got your eyewitnesses we got ours, truce

But your "eyewitnesses" talk in hyperbole:
"It sounded like a bomb went off."
Lots of things sound like a bomb going off to a lay person. A tire exploding can sound like a bomb going off. But did anyone actually SEE the explosives being placed? Do you have multiple people who can honestly say "I saw cordite" or "I saw C4" before the fact? Not surprisingly, the answer is no. Meanwhile, there are thousands of people who saw the planes impact--literally thousands.

-do you have to call us retarded? my feelings aren't hurt man, i can take it, but i don't see reaver or I calling you guys names, i see us pleading with you to just stick to the facts ma'am. we can do this without being condescending or rude.

You're right, it was uncalled for. I just tend to just get a little riled up when people completely disregard fact. I apologize.

-i don't think the amount of evidence against the holocaust compares to 911. the moon landing hoax however...

There are plenty of people who claim to have evidence about the halocaust being falsified. So now you're telling me that they're lying? Who am I supposed to believe now, now that you've ruled out:
-Historians
-Scientists
-Random guys with computers
Am I supposed to just pick and choose parts of history, make outrageous claims, then ignore the parts that don't dovetail in nicely with my version of events?

And don't even start with the moon landing--next thing you'll be saying is that you agree with HeavenSent about alien overlords and such.

-the fact that there are crazy people with internets is irrelevent.

Again, no, it's not irrelevant. If you're going to start taking things you read on the internet as fact, then you (at least at some point) have to come to grips with the fact that most everything you read isn't peer-reviewed or validated before it's posted. I could post "up is down" on a few Geocities webpages and get at least a few people to come along for the ride.

-yes, you make a good point, same as epi, that if a bush can pull this off and keep it hidden, why can't he keep other things hidden, why is he losing so much ground to china is another question. no, for this theory to make sense, it will have to be oprchestrated by an institution greater than the US gov't, one that does not want USA's war in raq to be justified to the world with the discovery of WMD's, one that does not want the USA to progress economically. of course, this line of reasoning makes the event even more large in scope, and most likely even more far fetched to those who are skeptical of grand conspiracies.

Life has a tendency to not run like an Ian Fleming novel.

[Ephemeral]

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate


For those less schooled, and this thread has plenty of them...
Given two equally predictive theories, select the simpler.

Example
You go home and find that your house has burned down.

Theory One
The government has targeted you as a subversive and has begun a campaign to drive you from the country.

Theory Two
You are a dumbass and you left your toaster oven on.

Doh.

[Epinephrine]

Oh I forgot to add, my usage of the word Police in that other thread was as poorly used as your usage of the word deranged. Although I'll admit, I was speaking from my own personal experience with the police, I shouldn't have used the word in that scenario because we're from different backgrounds and have different expectations and experiences with police.

Really I just called him deranged because I was arguing with you and he felt that he had to sanctimoniously butt into the argument and I thought I'd give him a taste of his own medicine.

[Vatican Assassin]

But it does matter how, if you're going to play armchair detective. See, for everything to go right in your theory, these people have to be dispatched somehow without anyone else ever finding out about it. What about the cell calls from loved ones before the crashes? We just gonna write those off too, or did the government somehow get some really great voice actors, hijacked their SIMM cards and placed phony calls, too? You can't just pick and choose individual situations if you really want people to think you're not just making shit up--the onus is completely on you to explain how everything just happened to work out flawlessly.


But your "eyewitnesses" talk in hyperbole:
"It sounded like a bomb went off."
Lots of things sound like a bomb going off to a lay person. A tire exploding can sound like a bomb going off. But did anyone actually SEE the explosives being placed? Do you have multiple people who can honestly say "I saw cordite" or "I saw C4" before the fact? Not surprisingly, the answer is no. Meanwhile, there are thousands of people who saw the planes impact--literally thousands.


You're right, it was uncalled for. I just tend to just get a little riled up when people completely disregard fact. I apologize.


There are plenty of people who claim to have evidence about the halocaust being falsified. So now you're telling me that they're lying? Who am I supposed to believe now, now that you've ruled out:
-Historians
-Scientists
-Random guys with computers
Am I supposed to just pick and choose parts of history, make outrageous claims, then ignore the parts that don't dovetail in nicely with my version of events?

And don't even start with the moon landing--next thing you'll be saying is that you agree with HeavenSent about alien overlords and such.


Again, no, it's not irrelevant. If you're going to start taking things you read on the internet as fact, then you (at least at some point) have to come to grips with the fact that most everything you read isn't peer-reviewed or validated before it's posted. I could post "up is down" on a few Geocities webpages and get at least a few people to come along for the ride.


Life has a tendency to not run like an Ian Fleming novel.

Ok concrete, the reason I do not wish to address the fate of the passengers is because there is no available evidence to support any conclusions I may draw. Yes, for this conspracy theory to be true, they would have to be explained, but I would much rather debate things we can see and events which were witnessed, such as explosions. This is not just because I cannot find a explanation, just becuse I have no way of backing it up with anything but my opinion. If this were a black op, then all you would have to do is put a gun to everyones head, and make them make those phone calls, record them, and send them out after you make sure they don't deviate from the script. the only difference between this part of the theory and the official one is that CIA agenets would be hijacking the plane instead of box cuttering terrorists. if they don't comply, start shooting them and they will.

but CIA agents wouldn't kill themselves and fly into the towers right? i would have to start guessing how they either got off the plane, which seems very unlikely as I can't think of a way of closing a plane door after jumping out. a better bet would be that they turned off the transponders at the same instant that a dummy plane was either directly above or below them and heading on the same course. the dummy plane would be flown by remote, which has been shown to be possible as the airforce has already tested flying and landing planes by remote. FAA does not rely upon radar to track the thousands of planes flying domestically every instint, so if the transponders were switched, it would not be possible to find out. but like i said, no evidence, all speculation, no reason to be talking about it unless you want to know what I think. it seems far fetched, but I think we can agree that its possible for the CIA to pull this off if they actually wanted to.

but let me just reiiterate, do not expect anyone to be able to explain everything that happened this day if it was an inside job. you just can't explain things governments do, even if they are not dong anything illegal, they have too much power and national security secrecy.

no, no one saw the bombs being planted, the CIA did not do it publicly. but every first responder reported that the lobby was blown up, the marble walls had fallen off, all the glass was destroyed. official story is the explosive impact from the planes traveled down the elevator shafts and took out the lobby. i don't know enough about explosions to deny that possibility. but i think you have missed some eye witnesses who saw the explosions themselves.

http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/...efighters.html

this link shows the chief of police and fire fighters trying to pull their men out after explosions were reported by multiple personel. the fire chief is convinced he lost men to secondary explosions. im at school so i can't pull up youtube links, but if you type "firefighters 911 explosions" you will see interviews of firefighters and police who are convinced they saw explosions racing down the building, such as those used to implode buildings due to be torn down. this is not hyperbole in this case, they SAW the explosions, felt them, these are not tires exploding in the skyrise building.

one interesting interview comes fom larry silverstein, the owner of the WTC, who filed for twice the insurance amount because there were 2 terrorist attacks. he said on a PBS special that he told the demolition experts do "pull" the building, a term used for imploding it. the interview is very well known, and on this account I can find no other explanation for why he said that other than it was true. this would have to mean that in the span of 3 hours demolition crews would have to set up explosives which usually takes weeks, and they did it perfect. then for some reason the 911 commission says it was due to damage from the other towers. definately contradictory accounts. with either version of what happened, i don't understand this anomoly. this is a fact that you are going to have to disregard in order to continue to believe in the official story.

i simply have not heard of the holocaust evidence, but regardless if there is or isnt, i fail to see how it effects the current argument other than by making our claims appear to be as outrageous as theirs. and hopefully 911 denial will not become a crime like holocaust denial. you say i've ruled out all historical and scientific data because i don't agree with holcaust denial experts? thats a interesting conclusion. however, if you read about the architects for 911 truth, you will see that i do value the opinions of experts as much as you, i simply side with a different group of them. thats sort of how life works, you know.

don't worry i'm not about to talk about the moon, that would do as much good as you bringing up the holocaust. ill try to stay on topic.

not everything on the internet is written by a random guy, or is unverified. the interview you hopefully watched by the firefighters, i dont think that is staged or photo shopped, they really think they saw explosions. its up to us to decide whether we want to believe them. i can write a book without being verified by anyone, i can make a tv program or a magazine article without a third party checking my data, same with the internet. attacking the medium of information itself is unhelpful, if you want to attack specific sources, that would probably be something I could at least address. I cannot prove the internet itself is worthy or not. thats why i believe that your assertion is irrelevent which pertains to the 911 truth movement as being flawed simply because it is carried on the internet.

it could also be that a toaster brought down the towers, i'm looking into it...

[Vatican Assassin]

Really I just called him deranged because I was arguing with you and he felt that he had to sanctimoniously butt into the argument and I thought I'd give him a taste of his own medicine.

you try to tell us you called me deranged "in a good way" about 5 times, now the truth comes out. is this how you usually handle such things? by answering sarcastically until enough people begin to wonder if you know what words mean so you finally have to say yes, i was insulting him because he talked to me? is this forum like an a->b conversation that i should c my way out of? i thought it was open to the entire TW community.

[Epinephrine]

Ok concrete, the reason I do not wish to address the fate of the passengers is because there is no available evidence to support any conclusions I may draw. Yes, for this conspracy theory to be true, they would have to be explained, but I would much rather debate things we can see and events which were witnessed, such as explosions. This is not just because I cannot find a explanation, just becuse I have no way of backing it up with anything but my opinion. If this were a black op, then all you would have to do is put a gun to everyones head, and make them make those phone calls, record them, and send them out after you make sure they don't deviate from the script. the only difference between this part of the theory and the official one is that CIA agenets would be hijacking the plane instead of box cuttering terrorists. if they don't comply, start shooting them and they will.

What's more likely, the fact that CIA agents put a gun to people's head, made them tell lies over a span of 1 hour while having active conversations with their loved ones, faked black box recordings (also made sure every single detail was correct including the pilots of the plane that day which can change last minute meaning the black box was faked 100% accurately within the hours it took to find the thing), then landed the plane somewhere else and killed everyone and disposed of the plane, all the while flying a mock 767 which was exactly the same as the real plane in every way including identification markers and pulling all of this off absolutely perfectly without anyone ever finding out.... or the official version of the events?

no, no one saw the bombs being planted, the CIA did not do it publicly. but every first responder reported that the lobby was blown up, the marble walls had fallen off, all the glass was destroyed. official story is the explosive impact from the planes traveled down the elevator shafts and took out the lobby. i don't know enough about explosions to deny that possibility. but i think you have missed some eye witnesses who saw the explosions themselves.

There was a documentary made of the 9/11 event by a french documentary crew as it happened. They walked into the lobby right before the buildings fell. I saw that documentary on TV when it was aired, and there weren't any explosions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/

You can also read this survivor's tale, he doesn't mention any bombed out lobby:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

one interesting interview comes fom larry silverstein, the owner of the WTC, who filed for twice the insurance amount because there were 2 terrorist attacks. he said on a PBS special that he told the demolition experts do "pull" the building, a term used for imploding it. the interview is very well known, and on this account I can find no other explanation for why he said that other than it was true. this would have to mean that in the span of 3 hours demolition crews would have to set up explosives which usually takes weeks, and they did it perfect. then for some reason the 911 commission says it was due to damage from the other towers. definately contradictory accounts. with either version of what happened, i don't understand this anomoly. this is a fact that you are going to have to disregard in order to continue to believe in the official story.

The highlighted part should be your first clue as to why this theory is totally bunk.


The official version of the events neatly explains exactly why everything that happened happened the way it did. None of the conspiracy theories can do that. That is why none of them are credible.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

i can write a book without being verified by anyone, i can make a tv program or a magazine article without a third party checking my data, same with the internet. attacking the medium of information itself is unhelpful, if you want to attack specific sources, that would probably be something I could at least address.

People already do this with the printed medium: it's called a tabloid. The reason I put absolutely no weight behind most 9/11 conspiracies is very closely related to how much I think about the bat-boy born with three left hands in Brazil last week.

Meanwhile, I think attacking the medium is perfectly acceptable in this case. The internet has (for better or worse) given everyone a world-wide voice. Above that, it's given them a near-anonymous voice. Anyone can say anything without the fear of physical reprocussion. On some levels, that's a fantastic thing. But that's also the problem--there's no way of verifying who's speaking or what their qualification is.

Don't get me wrong, I love using the internet, but I'm also quite aware of it's limitations as a research tool.

[Vatican Assassin]

concrete, agreed bro. although some things, like the actual video of witness reports, cannot be shrugged off so easily.

epi, i guess ill never get that apology, at least you have stood by what you said. as for your first story, it does sound like james bond, but when the CIA does a black op, thats what you get. do you think its impossible for them to put the same markings on a different plane? it involves the use of paint. do you think they can't make a fake black box, amd be able to switch the pilot names if they change within a few hours time? these people are the CIA man, they are fairly resourceful. as for the conversations, we can debate how "active" they are. i submit that all of the things we hear from the passengers could have been scripted easily enough. "we're under attack by terrorists, we'r gonna take control of the plane, i love you honey" thats the sort of things i would make them say, and thats what hey said. possible, yes, as likely as the actual story, well thats definately up to debate.

please explain the bold part you show as being totally bunk, i don't follow you there. when i get to a computer that i can watch video on, ill try to get a response to the bombed lobby claim, and i'll check out your sites as well. i am happy to look at and concede that any information you have may be as likely or even more likely than what i have accepted so far because i do not find you to be deranged, just different. so why do you think larry silverstein said he told the crews to bring down WTC7, and the official story said that it fell down on its own accord? i do not find this to be a neat explanation.

[Reaver]

Then what happened to all these people? The problem with conspiracy theories, at least in my case, is that there are even BIGGER holes that are never explained. It's always "this outrageous event happened--pay no attention to the events that would/should have been triggered by this outrageous scheme but failed to materialize."


We're not bringing up the old "geocentric vs. heliocentric model" now, are we? "Hey guys, remember when we thought trepaning was a good idea to let the demons out of your head if you were mentally ill?" We're not talking about broad ideas that aren't explainable by any other means--on one hand, you have people making some wild conjecture, and on the other hand you have thousands of professionals and eye-witnesses. Call it hubris or whatever you like, I tend to call it "not being retarded."


It's also a possibility that my shit might spontaneously turn to platinum tomorrow morning, but I'm not holding my breath for that, either. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure I'm intelligent enough to know how my digestive tract works and deduce that my fresh-n'-steamy will be brown and of good poop consistency.

There's "ridiculous possibility", and then there's just making shit up because you don't know any better or refuse to accept that someone else might actually know more than you about a specific area of study. Since I can't be an expert on everything, I find that it's a decent idea to listen to people who have committed their entire lives to the study of a subject.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to challenge convention, but I am saying that maybe some things have such a ridiculous mountain of evidence that there's no good way of applying some totally convenient "It was all part of the plan." Do you think it's a good idea to question the Halocaust, then, too? I mean, there's a lot of people out there with "evidence" of that never happening. How about the moon landing?

My point is that there are a LOT of crazy fuckers out there, and a LOT of them have internet connections now. Just because some dude has a shitload of free time and a pirated copy of FrontPage doesn't mean he's got it all figured out.


I'll be the first in line for the "Bush administration is shady as hell" rally, but seriously? You think they could make this happen and cover it all up? Without someone talking? Man, they can't even pull off a domestic spying program or shoot a single old man in the face without someone snitching. But yet they happened to involve hundreds (if not thousands) of people in an overarching scheme to incite a holy war, all while tricking the rest of the world? Nah, I don't buy it.

What are you talking about all these people? I'm defending Vatican in the point that it's reasonably possible that the government had something to do with this. Now where I differ is that I don't believe it's even even remotely possible or likely that the government hid air planes in bunkers and killed people or anything of the sort. I think a more reasonable reason for what happened was that the government let it's guard down. First, let me say that I'm not firmly in belief of this, I just think it's a possibility and I've thought about it awhile and I'm certain you couldn't provide any evidence to prove that this is not a possibility. There were reports that government agencies knew about the 9/11 threats before they happened. Now you can argue that they receive many threats every day, and they can't go after every one. And although I'll agree, stick with me here for a second. Let's suppose country A has Oil you want. Ok, now imagine there's a world organization that wouldn't look to kindly if you just went in and took it. Alright, now imagine that you want to get that oil, and the best way to go there is to tell the American people that you're liberating a people from a nasty tyrant. Great so far right, we're the good guys and they're the bad guys! Because after all, how successful has America been in wars where the American people didn't support the war? Ok, now imagine how many American's would get upset if they were attacked on their own soil, many American's killed, just like Pearl Harbor. Now you've got grounds for war. We're the good guys, helping those poor people by liberating them from the tyrant (just like we said we were civilizing the Indians) and at the same time we're going to be getting back at those guys that attacked us. Oh boy, revenge!

Now obviously that's a lot of IF's and I'm not convinced one way or the other on whether it happened like that. I only elaborated to show you what I believe is indeed a possibility, and much more likely, if it did happen than some idea that many people in the government were involved in some master scheme and hid airplanes in bunkers and killed innocent civilians to hide the truth.

As for the rest of your post, you're essentially attacking the straw man here. You're replying to me yet you're arguing against heavensent, which I haven't said has got it figured out, nor have I agreed with. You agreed in your post that it's a possibility but extremely unlikely, so we're on the same page.

I agree, many people on the internet, many incorrect people on the internet, not quite as easy discerning between accurately substantiated websites and those that are not. Did Vati have a genuine request to this so called abundant evidence that Epi claimed there was about the plane wreckage? Absolutely. If you say some evidence is abundant and then when someone asks you for it and you say you're not going to waste your time, well that's kinda bullshit now isn't it?

The truth about it is this, unless you were there, and you saw something happen, none of us will really know what exactly happened. At least not right now. So people can provide all the links and the video's and pictures all they want, but people will believe what they want to believe. Is Heavensent's claim quite ridiculous? Indeed.

[Epinephrine]

concrete, agreed bro. although some things, like the actual video of witness reports, cannot be shrugged off so easily.

epi, i guess ill never get that apology, at least you have stood by what you said. as for your first story, it does sound like james bond, but when the CIA does a black op, thats what you get. do you think its impossible for them to put the same markings on a different plane? it involves the use of paint. do you think they can't make a fake black box, amd be able to switch the pilot names if they change within a few hours time? these people are the CIA man, they are fairly resourceful. as for the conversations, we can debate how "active" they are. i submit that all of the things we hear from the passengers could have been scripted easily enough. "we're under attack by terrorists, we'r gonna take control of the plane, i love you honey" thats the sort of things i would make them say, and thats what hey said. possible, yes, as likely as the actual story, well thats definately up to debate.

please explain the bold part you show as being totally bunk, i don't follow you there. when i get to a computer that i can watch video on, ill try to get a response to the bombed lobby claim, and i'll check out your sites as well. i am happy to look at and concede that any information you have may be as likely or even more likely than what i have accepted so far because i do not find you to be deranged, just different. so why do you think larry silverstein said he told the crews to bring down WTC7, and the official story said that it fell down on its own accord? i do not find this to be a neat explanation.

I'm sorry Vat. Until the Ron Paul thread, I don't recall ever speaking to you or replying to things you said before (although I can be wrong). But the first memory I have of you is you making a disparaging and sarcastic remark towards what I said which frankly was between Reaver and myself. So if you don't want people responding to you similarly, perhaps you shouldn't start it yourself. But regardless, sorry for making you feel bad about yourself.

The bolded part shows exactly how incredulous your theory is. That somehow people can put in explosives in a few hours to perfectly demolish a building in what would normally take weeks to do. That alone should tell you it probably DIDN'T HAPPEN.



And yes the people on flight 93 did have real conversations with their families, talked about their loved ones and so on. While it's perfectly plausible that the CIA put guns to all of their heads, told them what to say and have a 'perfectly normal conversation' with their families, and these people in absolutely no way messed up or gave ANY hint that they were put up to it, really the fact that a 100 random people could do that successfully is pretty amazing. No one capable of planning such an elaborate and perfectly executed operation would go for something that risky, it's just silly.

As for my plane wreckage evidence, there's a section on the PM site that deals with it Reaver if you want to ignore it then fine. As well Reaver it's perfectly plausible that yes the government or parts of the government may have known this was happening but willingly ignored it because they knew this happening could further whatever goals they have. This is 100% different from what Heavensent or Vat is saying which is that the government actually ORCHESTRATED the entire thing.

[Eric is God]

If conspiracies don't exist how do you explain the fact that Michael Bay is allowed to live let alone keep making movies hmm?

[Spider]

Hey I liked Transformers. A little bit lame at parts, but the action was decent I laughed alot (at intentionally funny things). Also, that girl was really hot. And you know what, Pearl Harbor wasn't THAT bad either. Seesh!

I don't know why none of you have put 2 and 2 together and realized it's fucking aliens that are responsible for all the crazy shit that goes on around this planet.

[Vatican Assassin]

ya i went back and looked up our first encounter, and upon further review i did act like an asshole, and should be the one to apologize, which i offer now. forums sure don't bring out the best of me.

won't see that often so soak it in.

about larry silverstein, you misinterpreted my meaning, let me explain. he said on a PBS special that he gave the order to implode the building with a demolition team. of course, you know thats impossible because they would not have the time to set it up (let alone with fires in the building), so if he is telling the truth, then it would be in favor of a conspiracy theories.

all in all, you gotta admit, this whole situation is sort of funny, and maybe even pathetic. i mean on the one side you got me and heavensent, obviously we're onboard as conspiracy nuts, and on the other hand you got concrete and epi, obviously firmly against becoming nutjobs themselves. and other than a couple others, no one here even gives a shit. of all the 911 threads out there, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous. 4 2d spaceship fighters battling it out with no expertise available what so ever. (concrete responds by telling us that he is a structural engineer, doh) we may as well just be writing in our journals.

seriously though did you see the flag wave when they put it on the moon? but there's no air! kekekeke

edit: michael bay has a conspiracy of his own:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/04/m...-microsoft-fi/

[MetalHeadz]

There are undoubtedly very very suspect inconsistencies within the series of events that took place in 9/11 presented to us by the media and American Government. However, to assume that there is this thinking, conscious institutional body acting with political intent is absurd. Your observations are compelling and logic is with you all the way: but your assumption that this MUST have been planned explicitly and solely by the American Government is illogical. When you say something like, 'The American Government had good reason to commit 9/11 because they wanted to incite fear into the American public and wanted to overplay the presence of Islamic terrorism to justify foreign policy' you lose the logical battle because this is based on unprovable, non-observational suppositions.

To the people who say 'Nothing is wrong with the traditional accounts of 9/11 and the Pentagon, everything is scientifically sound' - I would suggest actually looking at Heavens arguments. I was skeptical at first asI am not at all a conspiracy theorist (I appreciate Keates's psychological assertion that the human brain prefers a bogus theory to no theory at all.) But the facts speak for themselves here: really evaluate them before you come armed with your nationalist sentimentality.

[DoTheFandango]

I would believe conspiracies...

IF I DIDN'T FUCKING SEE THE PLANE FLY INTO THE BUILDINGS.