Happy Atheist Forum

Do you think all conspiracy theories are rubbish or do you support any?

Me?  Well I am skeptical about most I hear about but the one "theory" that I do accept is that JFK's murder was not by the lone gunman.

What about the others?

911
Faked Moon landings
Diana's death
Illuminati

Any more?

China is planning to make the red planet their own.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 15, 2011, 02:41:17 PM
China is planning to make the red planet their own.

Using well trained dancing gerbils.

I don't know about the JFK shooting, but the shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby was as fake as they come.

I'm quite sure Lady Diana was killed.  She had the world's media in a frenzy and looked likely to bring the monarchy down.  In the preceding two weeks I predicted,  loudly and often, that she would be killed, and I've plenty of witnesses to that.

The suspicious death surrounding Pat Tillman, the former NFL football player turned Army Ranger. The death was chalked up as "friendly fire", but the details are sketchy at best. It appears that his death was used as a pro-war propaganda.

See this letter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/pat-tillmans-father-to-ar_n_680128.html) from his father. It's powerful. The letter is posted in the insert box near the bottom of the page.

Quote from: OldGit on July 15, 2011, 05:01:14 PM
I don't know about the JFK shooting, but the shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby was as fake as they come.

I'm quite sure Lady Diana was killed.  She had the world's media in a frenzy and looked likely to bring the monarchy down.  In the preceding two weeks I predicted,  loudly and often, that she would be killed, and I've plenty of witnesses to that.

I'm not sure her death was planned but I really do think she was pregnant with the arab baby!   So because of the accident, Im sure many in the "esatblishment" were quite relieved!

Quote from: OldGit on July 15, 2011, 05:01:14 PM
I don't know about the JFK shooting, but the shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby was as fake as they come.

You're being facetious, right?

I thoroughly believe I am being watched. So I always make sure to wear my makeup and brush my hair before I leave the house....



*this is the cocoo thread, right? :P

I think there is something fishy about the JFK assassination. I'm not exactly sure who was behind it, but there are way to many odd things about it, for example, the secret service agent walking to the front of the vehicle just before he was shot. JFK was also not liked by other sections of the government.

There are several valid JFK conspiracy theories which are more likely than the story given by the government.

I also think they haven't told us everything about 9/11. I seriously doubt the Bush administration was responsible, I don't think they were intelligent enough to pull it off, but it is plausible they had information about it happening and did nothing to prevent it.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on July 15, 2011, 11:06:03 PM
I also think they haven't told us everything about 9/11. I seriously doubt the Bush administration was responsible, I don't think they were intelligent enough to pull it off, but it is plausible they had information about it happening and did nothing to prevent it.

I also can't wrap my mind around how they couldn't have known about it or why they didn't act accordingly. I'm not a 'truther' or one who believes that it was staged by the U.S government, but it is puzzling. 
On the other side it's all too easy to believe in the possible governmental motivations behind letting it happen, though I'm aware that just because something is easy to believe it doesn't necessarily make it true. It just looks a bit too much like the opportunity the government was waiting for to declare war on the Middle East, with it's massive oil depositaries.

I'll only list a few since there are so many.

Believe:

The Tuskegee Experiment - In 1932, a small group inside the United States government began a program to study the effects of syphilis on human beings. While this in and of itself is fine, the method by which they studied the disease involved infecting a group of people, mostly black males, with the disease without their knowledge or permission. The experiment went on for years, and the test subjects were denied even the most basic care for their ailment. The study went on for roughly 40 years.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident - On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam, engaged three North Vietnamese Naval vessels. A few days later, it was reported, the Maddox and a second vessel, the Turner Joy, were supposedly engaged again by North Vietnamese forces, and supposedly US Naval vessels were sunk in the attack. These two incidents were used as the primary reason for the United States going to war military conflict with North Vietnam. It turns out the second attack never happened.

Operation Mockingbird - From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA paid well-known journalists all over the world to publish CIA propaganda. Journalists at Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS were outed during the Church Committee investigations.

Iran-Contra - In 1985 and 1986, the Reagan Administration illegally traded weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, in exchange for the release of American hostages. The funds from the illegal sales of the weapons went to fund the Nicaraguan rebel alliance, the Contras, in their guerrilla war against Nicaragua's then dictatorship, bypassing Congress, which had prohibited Reagan from helping the Contras.

CIA Drug Running - Similar to above, the CIA assisted Nicaraguan cocaine producers in selling their cocaine to Americans (particularly in Los Angeles) as a way of funding the Contras by intentionally not going after the drug dealers.

The Federal Reserve Bank - The Federal Reserve Bank was originally sold as a central American bank, put in place to maintain economic stability by carefully manipulating the value of the US Dollar. In reality, however, the Federal Reserve was easily infiltrated by private interests and largely acts in the interests of specific banks and financial institutions at the expense of the American economy and by extension the world economy. Instead of preventing economic instability, it's largely responsible for economic instability caused for the specific purpose of moving wealth from the average person to the super-wealthy.

Not sure:

The Business Plot - Allegedly, in 1933 a group of super-wealthy captains of industry including the heads of Chase, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, and DuPont along with Prescott Bush attempted a failed military coup of the United States government aiming to install a fascist dictatorship. Unfortunately, this case relies almost entirely on the word of one man, Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler. While some of his accusations were verified, many couldn't be substantiated based on the available evidence.

Kennedy Assassination - This is probably the worst one of the lot because there's so much information/misinformation. In 1976, the United States House of Representatives created the Select Committee on Assassinations to investigate the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. The conclusion of this investigation was that the assassination of President Kennedy was almost certainly carried out by the mob and possibly had the involvement of the CIA. While we know there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, that the lone-gunman theory is incorrect, the details leading to what actually did happen are hidden, destroyed, or nearly impossible to confirm. We may never know precisely what lead to the assassination.

Shadow Government - This theory basically goes that the President and Congress are not really the dominant forces in determining the actions of the United States government. It varies from theorist to theorist, but the way I see it, it's possible that the United States government is being run almost completely by a group of international bankers and military contractors/war profiteers, and that due to campaign finance problems, there's little to nothing that Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court can do because they're far too influenced by corrupt monies. The extent to which these groups or this group has control over the US government is what me unsure, because while certainly there's a problem with corporate, banking and military contractor money in politics, it's hard to say how much influence they really have.

Bonk:

9/11 - The conspiracy is a bit different depending on who you ask, but the most common threads between the theories are that 9/11 was planned by a group of powerful neoconservatives in the government and military as a false flag operation to push the United States into war. Theories usually involve the Pentagon being hit by a missile or bomb, the WTC being destroyed with controlled demolition, and the real flights being rerouted to a secret landing place where the supposed hijacking victims were either put into witness protection or were killed. I'm afraid the evidence just doesn't excuse jumping to such a wild conclusion. While clearly the Bush Administration could have done a hell of a lot more to prevent 9/11 and while clearly the neoconservative chicken hawks took advantage of the situation, the amount of planning and organization that would have been required stretches plausibility beyond its breaking point. Perhaps there are unanswered questions around 9/11, but that alone proves little.

Moon Landing - The theory goes that the moon landing was faked as a way to cheaply one-up the Soviets in the space race. Unfortunately, the evidence just isn't there. I've seen the flag on the moon through a powerful telescope.

Modern Illuminati - Once upon a time, there was a fraternal society in Bavaria which was established as a haven for secularists, free thinkers, republicans (not the American political party), feminists, and liberals to promote a better way of societal organization. Legend has it that there was a plan at one point to create a world-wide revolution to overthrow most governments in favor of a society based on anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism. Pretty damned cool, if you ask me. Eventually, the Illuminati was disbanded and destroyed, but many people use the term 'illuminati' to describe whatever vague, pseudo-religious one-world government theories they might have. Which is bollox. There's no evidence to suggest that the 200+ year old Illuminati still existing.

Vaccines - There's an insidious conspiracy which has been around for a few decades that vaccines are either an evil plot to blah blah blah or are causing Autism. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate these claims, and the result of the proliferation of these bonk theories is the damage of herd immunity.

I don't think anything big can be covered up, the secrecy line will eventually be broken due to the natural human instinct to gossip.  I also don't accept something if there isn't a reason to and more often than not the conspiracy theory is much more extraordinary than the official story.

Or in short, I don't pay much attention to conspiracy theories.

Quote from: Whitney on July 16, 2011, 01:11:50 AM
I don't think anything big can be covered up, the secrecy line will eventually be broken due to the natural human instinct to gossip.  I also don't accept something if there isn't a reason to and more often than not the conspiracy theory is much more extraordinary than the official story.

Or in short, I don't pay much attention to conspiracy theories.

A big +1.  I have yet to see any actual evidence of anything but a lone gunman in the JFK assassination.  Once everything presented is debunked, the most common thing I hear is that the government covered up the evidence, which is convenient.  I don't think we're hiding evidence of ET or some 9/11 US government involvement.  I don't believe in ghosts or psychics.  I think we really did land on the moon.   Bin Laden is dead.  I just don't think it's possible to keep extraordinary things under wraps for too long.  Conspiracy theories like these are more extraordinary than a top secret stealth airplane under development.  Just like with watergate, real actual evidence would eventually come to light. 

A big +1.  I have yet to see any actual evidence of anything but a lone gunman in the JFK assassination.   
[/quote]

In this case, I'd say the evidence has definitely come to light - it really is compelling.  The only reason that the conspiracy (that is the Warren Report which excuses the CIA / Government) continues is denial by government top brass because of national security.   

I think Bush senior knows exactly what happened - he was aware beforehand!

Quote from: palebluedot on July 15, 2011, 09:09:49 PM

Quote from: OldGit on July 15, 2011, 05:01:14 PM
I don't know about the JFK shooting, but the shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby was as fake as they come.

You're being facetious, right?

I phrased that badly.   I don't doubt that Ruby killed Oswald, but I do doubt that he just strolled up and did it off his own bat.

Quote from: palebluedot on July 16, 2011, 08:49:42 AM


A big +1.  I have yet to see any actual evidence of anything but a lone gunman in the JFK assassination.   

In this case, I'd say the evidence has definitely come to light - it really is compelling.  The only reason that the conspiracy (that is the Warren Report which excuses the CIA / Government) continues is denial by government top brass because of national security.   

I think Bush senior knows exactly what happened - he was aware beforehand!
[/quote]

Which evidence?  How does a cover up improve national security almost 50 years later?  Here is a really great page about it that does a pretty good job debunking the conspiracy theories and presenting actual evidence in favor of the lone gunman.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).

Conspiracy theories such as this, the moon hoax, the 9/11 government involvement, area 51 ET's, etc., are full of misinformation and logical fallacies.

Like Whitney said, cover ups don't last long.  We found out about Watergate pretty quickly.  We also found out about the fact that the government had some information about the 9/11 and the Pearl Harbor attack before these things happened, but weren't able, for whatever reason, to put all that together and stop those things from happening. 

Quote from: OldGit on July 16, 2011, 08:56:22 AM

Quote from: palebluedot on July 15, 2011, 09:09:49 PM

Quote from: OldGit on July 15, 2011, 05:01:14 PM
I don't know about the JFK shooting, but the shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby was as fake as they come.

You're being facetious, right?

I phrased that badly.   I don't doubt that Ruby killed Oswald, but I do doubt that he just strolled up and did it off his own bat.

Of course.  There's even the clip of him after he was arrested.  When asked who was behind JFK's murder he replied "the man at the top", taken to mean Lyndon Johnson, confirmed when he further said "Read a book called Texas Looks at Lyndon" [Actually A Texan Looks at Lyndon].  I got a copy of that book - it paints Johnson as 100% murderous crook.

I'm unsure about the moon landings.
9/11 was real, no hoax.
I think the Queen ordered the driver of Diana's car to intentionally crash. I don't think the monarchy would want a half-muslim prince. Correct me If I'm wrong but wasn't Diana pregnant and was dating this muslim dude.

Quote from: CHI83 on July 18, 2011, 07:46:42 PM
I'm unsure about the moon landings.
9/11 was real, no hoax.
I think the Queen ordered the driver of Diana's car to intentionally crash. I don't think the monarchy would want a half-muslim prince. Correct me If I'm wrong but wasn't Diana pregnant and was dating this muslim dude.

Diana was not pregnant and while her boyfriend was a Muslim any offspring would have had no royal connections and no royal title or status. Diana lost those when she divorced Charles. Her two boys have royal lineage because of their father not their mother.

I was born in 1959 and grew up through the space race and the moon landings. They happened. The conspiracy theorist makes a fortune and does so exploiting the gullibility, ignorance and paranoia of the masses with a good story, they are rarely in a position to know the truth. The whistle-blower is usually intimately associated with the issue they are revealing and very rarely make any money exposing the story they are involved with.

thanks for the clarification Tank. Man your so lucky that you got to watch the whole space race and moon landings. Maybe this century humans will go to mars.

Quote from: CHI83 on July 19, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
thanks for the clarification Tank. Man your so lucky that you got to watch the whole space race and moon landings. Maybe this century humans will go to mars.

You're welcome  :)

I think there is a high probability that we will get to Mars in your lifetime.

Quote from: Tank on July 19, 2011, 08:05:18 PM

Quote from: CHI83 on July 19, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
thanks for the clarification Tank. Man your so lucky that you got to watch the whole space race and moon landings. Maybe this century humans will go to mars.

You're welcome  :)

I think there is a high probability that we will get to Mars in your lifetime.

And then we'll have another Transformers movie!

Quote from: CHI83 on July 18, 2011, 07:46:42 PMI think the Queen ordered the driver of Diana's car to intentionally crash. I don't think the monarchy would want a half-muslim prince. Correct me If I'm wrong but wasn't Diana pregnant and was dating this muslim dude.

I think Her Majesty is secretly a vampire. How else can you explain her being like... Five hundred years old and still going strong... Ish..?  :-X

Quote from: Asmodean on July 20, 2011, 06:38:26 PM

I think Her Majesty is secretly a vampire. How else can you explain her being like... Five hundred years old and still going strong... Ish..?  :-X

actually, she has a bit of werewolf in her blood.
Dr. who never lies

Quote from: Asmodean on July 20, 2011, 06:38:26 PM

Quote from: CHI83 on July 18, 2011, 07:46:42 PMI think the Queen ordered the driver of Diana's car to intentionally crash. I don't think the monarchy would want a half-muslim prince. Correct me If I'm wrong but wasn't Diana pregnant and was dating this muslim dude.

I think Her Majesty is secretly a vampire. How else can you explain her being like... Five hundred years old and still going strong... Ish..?  :-X

The Monarchy wouldn't have had a half muslim prince, any child that Diana and Dodi may have had would not be in the Royal Family, hence would not be involved in the line of succession.

Yes, any child that Diana may have had after divorcing Charles, would have been half siblings to Prince William, but since they would have been related through their mother, then in terms of Primogeniture, it would mean nothing.

As to whether Diana was even pregnant...well there was a rumour that she was, then there was a rumour that she was, but it wasn't Dodi's, and since then, it has emerged that she wasn't even preggers in the first place.

So the Royal Family had no motive to bump off Diana, and even if they did, then they would be more likely to get a crack pot to kill her Jill Dando style, than ask her driver to do a kamikaze crash which would be as likely to kill himself as Diana.

After all, some nutter who killed a famous person and then claims he was ordered to by The Queen, might aswell claim that Elvis made him do it, because no one would take them seriously anyway.

Perhaps being American makes me ignorant into the subject, but what is so important about royal blood that it would even matter if there were Muslims in the family?  What is it about Elizabeth that make people think she hates Muslims or is scared of their blood in the family tree?  If purity of royal blood was so important that they would kill to maintain it, wouldn't there be more inbreeding?  I figure if royal blood was so important to maintain Diana would have been killed BEFORE she married Charles.  OH NO A SCHOOLTEACHER!!!????  Kill her now!  No way a future king of England will be the offspring of a schoolteacher!

I'm not sure the queen would have an issue with a Muslin as such. However the Queen or King is the head of the Church of England, so if William decided to convert to Islam that could well raise constitutional issues if he still wanted to take his position as King.

I doubt the Queen has any problem with Muslims, and as she is the head of the Royal Family, rather than The Sopranos, she isn't likely to be ordering hits on anyone anyway.  Much less the mother of her grandsons.

But that kind of response to the conspiracy theory that she had Diana bumped off, isn't likely to carry much weight among those likely to believe it, because it is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Quote from: Ragnar on July 27, 2011, 02:31:33 AM
I doubt the Queen has any problem with Muslims, and as she is the head of the Royal Family, rather than The Sopranos, she isn't likely to be ordering hits on anyone anyway. 

Ye, everyone knows Philip takes care of that stuff.

Quote from: MariaEvri on July 21, 2011, 12:18:37 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on July 20, 2011, 06:38:26 PM

I think Her Majesty is secretly a vampire. How else can you explain her being like... Five hundred years old and still going strong... Ish..?  :-X

actually, she has a bit of werewolf in her blood.
Dr. who never lies

Fact.

Quote from: Will on July 15, 2011, 11:56:48 PM
Believe:

The Tuskegee Experiment - In 1932, a small group inside the United States government began a program to study the effects of syphilis on human beings. While this in and of itself is fine, the method by which they studied the disease involved infecting a group of people, mostly black males, with the disease without their knowledge or permission. The experiment went on for years, and the test subjects were denied even the most basic care for their ailment. The study went on for roughly 40 years.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident - On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam, engaged three North Vietnamese Naval vessels. A few days later, it was reported, the Maddox and a second vessel, the Turner Joy, were supposedly engaged again by North Vietnamese forces, and supposedly US Naval vessels were sunk in the attack. These two incidents were used as the primary reason for the United States going to war military conflict with North Vietnam. It turns out the second attack never happened.

Operation Mockingbird - From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA paid well-known journalists all over the world to publish CIA propaganda. Journalists at Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS were outed during the Church Committee investigations.

Iran-Contra - In 1985 and 1986, the Reagan Administration illegally traded weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, in exchange for the release of American hostages. The funds from the illegal sales of the weapons went to fund the Nicaraguan rebel alliance, the Contras, in their guerrilla war against Nicaragua's then dictatorship, bypassing Congress, which had prohibited Reagan from helping the Contras.

CIA Drug Running - Similar to above, the CIA assisted Nicaraguan cocaine producers in selling their cocaine to Americans (particularly in Los Angeles) as a way of funding the Contras by intentionally not going after the drug dealers.

The Federal Reserve Bank - The Federal Reserve Bank was originally sold as a central American bank, put in place to maintain economic stability by carefully manipulating the value of the US Dollar. In reality, however, the Federal Reserve was easily infiltrated by private interests and largely acts in the interests of specific banks and financial institutions at the expense of the American economy and by extension the world economy. Instead of preventing economic instability, it's largely responsible for economic instability caused for the specific purpose of moving wealth from the average person to the super-wealthy.

I didn't know there was any controversy about the truthiness of these ones.

There is one that I believe, but again I have some pretty solid evidence. James Earl Ray did not kill MLK. The evidence I have is from a book called "An Act of State" by William Pepper. In it, he notes that James Earl Ray was posthumously acquitted, with the help of Greta Scott King and their children. Even if he did, he was paid and paid to confess. MLK started realizing (as did Malcom X) that the majority of the equality issues had less to do with race and more to do with class. Once they started rallying around that issue, both were shot and the killings were blamed on someone else. I don't know much about Malcom X's assassination, but I am pretty sure MLK was executed.

What does everyone think of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case? 


(added)Oh and I pretty much reject all labeled "conspiracy theories". Doesn't mean I believe everything about every story.

Quote from: Awolf26 on August 04, 2011, 05:48:45 PM

Quote from: Will on July 15, 2011, 11:56:48 PM
Believe:

The Tuskegee Experiment - In 1932, a small group inside the United States government began a program to study the effects of syphilis on human beings. While this in and of itself is fine, the method by which they studied the disease involved infecting a group of people, mostly black males, with the disease without their knowledge or permission. The experiment went on for years, and the test subjects were denied even the most basic care for their ailment. The study went on for roughly 40 years.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident - On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam, engaged three North Vietnamese Naval vessels. A few days later, it was reported, the Maddox and a second vessel, the Turner Joy, were supposedly engaged again by North Vietnamese forces, and supposedly US Naval vessels were sunk in the attack. These two incidents were used as the primary reason for the United States going to war military conflict with North Vietnam. It turns out the second attack never happened.

Operation Mockingbird - From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA paid well-known journalists all over the world to publish CIA propaganda. Journalists at Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS were outed during the Church Committee investigations.

Iran-Contra - In 1985 and 1986, the Reagan Administration illegally traded weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, in exchange for the release of American hostages. The funds from the illegal sales of the weapons went to fund the Nicaraguan rebel alliance, the Contras, in their guerrilla war against Nicaragua's then dictatorship, bypassing Congress, which had prohibited Reagan from helping the Contras.

CIA Drug Running - Similar to above, the CIA assisted Nicaraguan cocaine producers in selling their cocaine to Americans (particularly in Los Angeles) as a way of funding the Contras by intentionally not going after the drug dealers.

The Federal Reserve Bank - The Federal Reserve Bank was originally sold as a central American bank, put in place to maintain economic stability by carefully manipulating the value of the US Dollar. In reality, however, the Federal Reserve was easily infiltrated by private interests and largely acts in the interests of specific banks and financial institutions at the expense of the American economy and by extension the world economy. Instead of preventing economic instability, it's largely responsible for economic instability caused for the specific purpose of moving wealth from the average person to the super-wealthy.

I didn't know there was any controversy about the truthiness of these ones.

There is one that I believe, but again I have some pretty solid evidence. James Earl Ray did not kill MLK. The evidence I have is from a book called "An Act of State" by William Pepper. In it, he notes that James Earl Ray was posthumously acquitted, with the help of Greta Scott King and their children. Even if he did, he was paid and paid to confess. MLK started realizing (as did Malcom X) that the majority of the equality issues had less to do with race and more to do with class. Once they started rallying around that issue, both were shot and the killings were blamed on someone else. I don't know much about Malcom X's assassination, but I am pretty sure MLK was executed.

What does everyone think of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case? 


(added)Oh and I pretty much reject all labeled "conspiracy theories". Doesn't mean I believe everything about every story.

Ray was not officially acquitted in a real trial.  It was a mock trial staged by a friend of the Kings.  The Kings did win a wrongful death lawsuit against someone else (and received only 100 dollars in the judgment, as a way of showing they weren't after money).  So Ray may not have killed King, but he was never ACTUALLY acquitted.

Quote from: fester30 on August 05, 2011, 12:26:52 AM

Ray was not officially acquitted in a real trial.  It was a mock trial staged by a friend of the Kings.  The Kings did win a wrongful death lawsuit against someone else (and received only 100 dollars in the judgment, as a way of showing they weren't after money).  So Ray may not have killed King, but he was never ACTUALLY acquitted.

Good to know. Now that I think of it, the professor that assigned that book, way back when, was pretty good at leaving key information out of his lectures.

Quote from: Asmodean on July 20, 2011, 06:38:26 PM
I think Her Majesty is secretly a vampire. How else can you explain her being like... Five hundred years old and still going strong... Ish..?  :-X

LOL

As for princess Diana, the kamikaze driver story doesn't seem to be plausible. If you wanted to kill someone, there are more subtle and less dramatic ways of doing so which wouldn't draw even more media attention and hype to their situation (with her already going through the divorce and all)....

Also, if I'm not mistaken, she was the so-called commoner, though descended from a line or something.

I thoroughly believe there is something akin to addictive crack in the Weinersnitzhel chili dog sauce. I find myself licking the very paper clean.

I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 24, 2011, 03:11:50 AM
I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

I reject this.

Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 24, 2011, 07:01:10 AM

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 24, 2011, 03:11:50 AM
I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

I reject this.

I also reject this.  Just in the case of the pentagon, irresponsible behavior of 9/11 truthers can be seen.  They cherry pick among eyewitnesses to find the few who claim to have not seen an airplane, and they cherry-picked a CNN interview to find where a CNN correspondent said there wasn't any visible airplane wreckage.  What the correspondent was actually saying is there wasn't sufficient airplane wreckage OUTSIDE the pentagon to show that the plane hit the ground prior to entering the building.  However, there was DEFINITELY wreckage there, and in Pennsylvania.  There is no doubt airplanes went into the twin towers, and no doubt about who was on those airplanes to hijack them.  Here is a great website that properly debunks the 9/11 "truth" movement complete with actual facts and sources.

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html (http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html)

Quote from: fester30 on August 24, 2011, 12:03:12 PM

Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 24, 2011, 07:01:10 AM

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 24, 2011, 03:11:50 AM
I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

I reject this.

I also reject this.  Just in the case of the pentagon, irresponsible behavior of 9/11 truthers can be seen.  They cherry pick among eyewitnesses to find the few who claim to have not seen an airplane, and they cherry-picked a CNN interview to find where a CNN correspondent said there wasn't any visible airplane wreckage.  What the correspondent was actually saying is there wasn't sufficient airplane wreckage OUTSIDE the pentagon to show that the plane hit the ground prior to entering the building.  However, there was DEFINITELY wreckage there, and in Pennsylvania.  There is no doubt airplanes went into the twin towers, and no doubt about who was on those airplanes to hijack them.  Here is a great website that properly debunks the 9/11 "truth" movement complete with actual facts and sources.

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html (http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html)

Also, this guy was pretty much dedicated to all the 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Debunking 9/11 (http://www.debunking911.com/)

I'll begin by saying I strongly disagree with Noam Chomsky and have lost some respect for him from that video. The point I disagree on is that "it doesn't matter" if there was a plot or not. I would say it matters to the point that whoever committed over 3,000 acts of murder against unarmed citizens would then be an enemy of the entire American populace, regardless of who they are; if it were to turn out that enemy were the government, it would have monumental implications. But I don't know who it was, nor why they did it. Discount the hole in the Pentagon, discount the empty field in Pennsylvania... but I've not yet heard (ten years later) ANY credible explanation (including the link posted) for what happened to Building 7. That is enough to make me believe the official story is a lie. Watching that building demolished is enough for me to believe something out of line happened. I understand that many people disagree with me, and they have their reasons. But I've yet to hear a credible explanation for Building 7.

The site I linked has what I found to be all sorts of credible about Building 7 (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm).

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 24, 2011, 08:02:37 PM
I'll begin by saying I strongly disagree with Noam Chomsky and have lost some respect for him from that video. The point I disagree on is that "it doesn't matter" if there was a plot or not. I would say it matters to the point that whoever committed over 3,000 acts of murder against unarmed citizens would then be an enemy of the entire American populace, regardless of who they are; if it were to turn out that enemy were the government, it would have monumental implications. But I don't know who it was, nor why they did it. Discount the hole in the Pentagon, discount the empty field in Pennsylvania... but I've not yet heard (ten years later) ANY credible explanation (including the link posted) for what happened to Building 7. That is enough to make me believe the official story is a lie. Watching that building demolished is enough for me to believe something out of line happened. I understand that many people disagree with me, and they have their reasons. But I've yet to hear a credible explanation for Building 7.

Well, you will only hear credible explanations if you listen to credible people. Apparently you haven't been listening to any credible people or you wouldn't have made the post you made. Plenty of information available if you take the time to read it.

On the whole issue with conspiracies and conspiracy theorists - personally, I don't have the time any more to spend trying to present rational arguments with people who refuse to believe rationally, so I just let the conspiracy believers have their fantasies.

Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

McQ, in your first post addressing me you managed to both question my intelligence (or at least my judgement) and patronize me as an irrational fool; congratulations. It usually takes people a week or so to insult me that well. Nevertheless, I expected a more open-minded attitude amongst people so used to close-mindedness. Whatever your personal agenda, we are in an adult debate; if you're not qualified to attend, by all means don't bother.

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 05:15:43 AM
Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

McQ, in your first post addressing me you managed to both question my intelligence (or at least my judgement) and patronize me as an irrational fool; congratulations. It usually takes people a week or so to insult me that well. Nevertheless, I expected a more open-minded attitude amongst people so used to close-mindedness. Whatever your personal agenda, we are in an adult debate; if you're not qualified to attend, by all means don't bother.

Adults in arguments don't get touchy so quickly, especially in online arguments where you cannot tell a person's demeanor by their facial expressions or body language.  McQ may have been a bit dismissive, however, McQ did not question your intelligence, but simply your rationality, and he's right.  The preponderance of evidence is on McQ's side.  All of the evidence that has been shown to be fabricated or altered has been on the side of the conspiracy theorists, which is common, just like in the JFK conspiracies.  It's one thing if you choose to believe that there is something fishy about building 7.  However, the very brief argument you referenced on building 7 (without sources) is easily debunked by the sources provided by those who replied.  A rational person would more likely accept the evidence and arguments presented by the most experienced, educated persons in the arguments, and not the conspiracy theorists who mostly do not have education or experience in any field required.  So I think the word for you isn't that you aren't intelligent, but instead that you are gullible, which is very easy to do considering how many people follow such conspiracy theories largely based on the lack of evidence or on ignored evidence.

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 05:15:43 AM
Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

McQ, in your first post addressing me you managed to both question my intelligence (or at least my judgement) and patronize me as an irrational fool; congratulations. It usually takes people a week or so to insult me that well. Nevertheless, I expected a more open-minded attitude amongst people so used to close-mindedness. Whatever your personal agenda, we are in an adult debate; if you're not qualified to attend, by all means don't bother.

Exactly what fester30 said. You are being way too sensitive to criticism of your argument. As you said, this is an adult debate. If you can't take the heat, get out of it now. And don't presume to know me, my intentions, or presume that I have an agenda. The same lack of critical thinking that goes into belief in conspiracy theories is evident in your presumptions.

I neither said you were irrational or a fool. If I thought that I would say it directly. You spent half of your reply to me trying to insult me, however, which will get you nowhere. I suggest you check that attitude quickly and get back on track.

Perhaps I sounded touchy; when people assume I haven't listened to credible sources, and am just indulging in fantasies, it sounds to me like I'm being called gullible. Oh wait, that was Fester... sorry. But no, I'm not being sensitive; I'm responding the way I'm being replied to, and I am not agitated; I expect some negative reaction when I bring up a touchy subject. For the record, I would rather not believe the way I do, but I've seen too many anomalies about that day that I haven't found reliable explanations for. Have I seen weak and even fabricated evidence? Absolutely, and I have dismissed such things out of hand. But I've also seen weak and fabricated evidence supporting the official position as well. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org), for example, is a group of 1,500 architects and engineers that have still not gotten any answers to their questions about what happened to Building 7 (among others). There have been conflicting reports, footage of multiple news sources claiming the building had collapsed when it was still in frame behind the reporter, the insurance issues involved with Silverstein, and the very obvious demolition-style collapse. I only claim it could have been an inside job because to set explosive charges in the building, it would have to be. But I don't claim these things or accuse lightly. I wish I had some explanation that I could believe. Too many questions haven't been answered. Trust that I'm well aware how me saying I'm a "truther" makes me look to the general public, most of whom have long since accepted the official story. In a courtroom you have to prove your case "beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt". I have many shadows of doubt, and I (as well as many others) believe them to be quite reasonable. But the media has taken care of public opinion, so that any responses to those "conspiracy nuts" have been limited to people like Noam offering their personal opinions or "experts" regurgitating the official story (or variants). Think what you like of theorists, but give me credit that I have done research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUbVbmpblFk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUbVbmpblFk&feature=player_embedded)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=player_embedded)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/)
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html)

What McQ said about the lack of critical thinking is correct.

To use one example, in the first video link you added, they make assumptions and go with those, building an assumption into a strong suspicion. The mayor, for instance, even though his bunker was refitted  earlier who would assume that he would prefer to hide himself in a building on the same block as two towers that had just been hit with two  terrorist airplanes and were about to be razed to the ground? Why is it suspicious that he chose to go elsewhere in the city other than stay practically on the same block, since he was not a target and it was not a domestic but foreign threat issue.  

I don't really know what happened, I do think that there's something suspicious there (or at least a massive failure on the part of the government) but I wouldn't turn to media (and much less people like Alex Jones) for insights and information on what happened. Bad thing is, there really isn't much else a civilian not involved with investigative reporting or qualified detective work can turn to to get information.

As for the pilots, I don't know nearly enough to comment. And I think that what engineers have to say is more relevant than architects.

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 05:15:43 AM
Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

You just don't agree... well then I guess that's a well settled rational decision. For the record: I don't believe anything. The building 7 crap is, well crap. The photos show that building 7 was in fact damaged by the collapse of the towers and there were large fires inside it. So which parts did you have problems with?

Quote from: Davin on August 25, 2011, 05:13:39 PM
You just don't agree... well then I guess that's a well settled rational decision. For the record: I don't believe anything. The building 7 crap is, well crap. The photos show that building 7 was in fact damaged by the collapse of the towers and there were large fires inside it. So which parts did you have problems with?

First, what Silverstein said and what he meant (and interpretation of what he meant) are irrelevant as none of us were in on the conversation. More telling is the private purchase of the building, followed by the extensive insuring of the building, including terrorism-specific insurance, followed by the coincidental attack. But that's not proof enough, by a long shot. Also, eyewitness accounts of a 20-story hole are as believable and relevant as eyewitness accounts of a lack of said hole. I wasn't there, and neither is the building, so people are free to say what they like about what they saw. I didn't see in the footage the beams of towers 1 and 2 "split apart" as the article claims; seems to me the buildings collapsed fairly intact and straight down (with the second tower twisting some). Had Building 7 taken a hit that scooped out 20 stories from the ground up, it's logical to assume the building would collapse sideways, as it's mass would be unbalanced. The videos all show Building 7 collapsing in on itself, landing in it's own footprint, at freefall speed, in perfect demolition style. Watch videos of demolitions like those performed in Vegas, then watch Building 7. Then check out videos of buildings collapsed by fires (very rare) then watch Building 7 one more time. Silverstein's comments, witness accounts, official stories, are all secondary to what the video shows. 

One might also note that buildings don't fall to one side very often (unless pulled), they collapse downward. If you looked at the videos you'd also see that it didn't go straight down, it leaned south and fell that way... but since you've already seen all that evidence, and you didn't say that you had a problem with it, I'm going off of what you say and what is reasonable to assume that you don't have a problem with that evidence which would contradict your statement that it fell straight down. I've seen lots of demolitions, visual correlations from one thing to another through untrained and ignorant viewers are even worse than eyewitness accounts.

I'm also going to assume that the photos of the south side of the building showing damage, and of the fires inside the building are also something you don't contend since you didnt mention them (and mentioned eyewitness accounts for some unkown reason). You'll also note the photo after the collapse that the north wall of the building was ontop of all the other debris (in controlled demolitions, the roof is on top), which means that the building did fall towards the south (towards the side with the damage) and not straight down.

I saw fires, I saw a lot of missing windows... I didn't see significant damage to the structure of the building, though I looked. No, I can't say why the wall ended up on top of the pile; best I can offer is that for a demolition situation conditions were less than ideal. The fall seems pretty textbook demo, though.

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 06:47:34 PM
I saw fires, I saw a lot of missing windows... I didn't see significant damage to the structure of the building, though I looked.

I saw (and still see every time I look at the pictures), significant damage to a building whose first floor had an open atrium design with very few support pillars.

Quote from: DaemonWulfNo, I can't say why the wall ended up on top of the pile; best I can offer is that for a demolition situation conditions were less than ideal.

I think you offered a better explanation earlier: "Had Building 7 taken a hit that scooped out 20 stories from the ground up, it's logical to assume the building would collapse sideways, as it's mass would be unbalanced."

Given your statement that if there had been significant damage to one side of the building, you think the building should fall in that direction. The building fell in that direction according to your prediction, and you still deny it. Seems like you have a few consistency problems to work out with your own reasoning.

Quote from: DaemonWulfThe fall seems pretty textbook demo, though.

"The videos all show Building 7 collapsing in on itself, landing in it's own footprint, at freefall speed, in perfect demolition style."
It didn't fall only into its own footprint (as shown by the videos and photos and it collapsing onto a street) and it wasn't in perfect demolition style (because it didn't fall straight down and the north wall was ontop of the pile showing that it leaned south). Though maybe your textbooks are different from mine.

Quote from: Davin on August 25, 2011, 07:57:43 PM
I saw (and still see every time I look at the pictures), significant damage to a building whose first floor had an open atrium design with very few support pillars.

In the link you posted? I mean I haven't seen that anywhere else either, but that if that was in the link you posted... perhaps it was in another part of the website, separate from what you posted? If you find it again, please, post it.

Quote from: Davin on August 25, 2011, 07:57:43 PMI think you offered a better explanation earlier: "Had Building 7 taken a hit that scooped out 20 stories from the ground up, it's logical to assume the building would collapse sideways, as it's mass would be unbalanced."

Given your statement that if there had been significant damage to one side of the building, you think the building should fall in that direction. The building fell in that direction according to your prediction, and you still deny it. Seems like you have a few consistency problems to work out with your own reasoning.

Actually, the building didn't fall sideways; if you watch any of the videos of the collapse (please, don't just watch my sources; find others) you can clearly see that it fell straight down. I don't ask you to trust me, as that would obviously be silly... trust your own powers of observation. They're more reliable than even Fox News.

Quote from: Davin on August 25, 2011, 07:57:43 PMIt didn't fall only into its own footprint (as shown by the videos and photos and it collapsing onto a street) and it wasn't in perfect demolition style (because it didn't fall straight down and the north wall was on top of the pile showing that it leaned south). Though maybe your textbooks are different from mine.

No, I'm pretty sure even the textbooks admit that even when the building falls straight down (as it did) a funny little thing called chaos theory may come into play and some debris may end up in the street, and the roof doesn't always land on top... there may be a stubborn wall now and then. Though feel free to check that part out; I'm not a demolition professional.

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 10:14:53 PM

Quote from: Davin
I saw (and still see every time I look at the pictures), significant damage to a building whose first floor had an open atrium design with very few support pillars.

In the link you posted? I mean I haven't seen that anywhere else either, but that if that was in the link you posted... perhaps it was in another part of the website, separate from what you posted? If you find it again, please, post it.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: DaemonWulf

Quote from: DavinI think you offered a better explanation earlier: "Had Building 7 taken a hit that scooped out 20 stories from the ground up, it's logical to assume the building would collapse sideways, as it's mass would be unbalanced."

Given your statement that if there had been significant damage to one side of the building, you think the building should fall in that direction. The building fell in that direction according to your prediction, and you still deny it. Seems like you have a few consistency problems to work out with your own reasoning.

Actually, the building didn't fall sideways; if you watch any of the videos of the collapse (please, don't just watch my sources; find others) you can clearly see that it fell straight down. I don't ask you to trust me, as that would obviously be silly... trust your own powers of observation. They're more reliable than even Fox News.

I can clearly see that it did not fall straight down in the videos, also the evidence afterwards shows that it did not fall straight down.

Quote from: DaemonWulf

Quote from: DavinIt didn't fall only into its own footprint (as shown by the videos and photos and it collapsing onto a street) and it wasn't in perfect demolition style (because it didn't fall straight down and the north wall was on top of the pile showing that it leaned south). Though maybe your textbooks are different from mine.

No, I'm pretty sure even the textbooks admit that even when the building falls straight down (as it did) a funny little thing called chaos theory may come into play and some debris may end up in the street, and the roof doesn't always land on top... there may be a stubborn wall now and then. Though feel free to check that part out; I'm not a demolition professional.

Merely asserting that it fell straight down doesn't help, especially when videos and evidence afterwards shows that it did not fall straight down (most likely because it didn't fall straight down).

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fbarclay.jpg&hash=0656abc9b22b6484292af4918cd3f46b20202fa8)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fb7debris.jpg&hash=6856113e112fd82ad9d5415ed5e0a5e798d82721)

You'll notice that the debris is not just a little bit that may fall on the road, but a big portion of the building, as well as a lot of it landing on the white building across the street from it... not something I'd consider a "textbook" demolition (unless damaging other buildings is taught in the blow stuff up school, but I'm pretty sure it's not). If you want to consider a building falling across a street as falling straight down, there isn't much I can do to have a rational conversation with you. So have fun.

For one thing, in America I think we've lost what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.  It's supposed to be "beyond a REASONABLE doubt," but in modern times it has become beyond a shred of doubt in courts.  Just look at OJ and Casey Anthony.  Reason seems to have been abandoned if you have a sufficiently good defense attorney.

Also, just because we can't explain 100% of something doesn't mean it must be something else.  Just because there may be some aspects of the 9/11 thing we cannot explain, doesn't mean that there has to be some kind of government cover up.

In your first point, Davin, what I was talking about was the lack of any photographic or video evidence that Building 7 was structurally damaged. Your link showed no evidence of that nature, nor have I found such evidence elsewhere.

Certainly the debris spread past just the footprint of the building, I think we both conceded that point. But the building did not topple across any streets, as it didn't fall sideways. Any objective person watching video of building 7 falling can very clearly see the building didn't tip sideways and fall over; it collapsed straight down. If you can watch the video without at least seeing that much, you are probably right that we shouldn't have this conversation any longer.

Fester, I'm really not clinging to "any port in a storm" here; I wish it were something that I could let go that easily. If Building 7 is a controlled explosion rather than destruction consistent with the events of the day surrounding it, I think it's safe to say that raises much more serious questions about what happened. Huge portions of the 9/11 Commission Report we're omitted, so many inconsistencies have been brought to light... I ask this: if everything happened the way we were told it happened, what is there to lose in another investigation? One that isn't modified and altered the way the Commission Report was?

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 11:41:11 PMIn your first point, Davin, what I was talking about was the lack of any photographic or video evidence that Building 7 was structurally damaged. Your link showed no evidence of that nature, nor have I found such evidence elsewhere.

I suppose the damaged bits that weren't blocked by huge amounts of smoke coming from the south side of the building don't indicate damage. I also suppose the huge amounts of smoke coming from the south side of the building doesn't indicate damage. I don't suppose a building falling down is evidence that it was structurally damaged. That the fire department pulled out from rescue operations because they suspected the building to be too dangerous to keep men in there (then it falling three hours later), isn't evidence that it was structurally damaged.

Quote from: DaemonWulfCertainly the debris spread past just the footprint of the building, I think we both conceded that point.

I'm not sure if this is just dishonest or you have something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension, understanding of the term "concede" or memory: I did not concede to that point, as it was one of my points. You conceded to my point because you initially said it did fall straight down into its footprint. So which kind of failure was this: Honesty, definition, memory or reading?

Quote from: DaemonWulfBut the building did not topple across any streets, as it didn't fall sideways.

The photos and video show otherwise. There wasn't just a bit of debris on the street, the street was covered and there was debris ontop of the building across the street. The photos clearly showed this to be the case, which is why people think conspiracy nuts are... well nuts... because they deny clear evidence. Unless the conspirators came by and shovelled bits of the building into the streets before anyone could take a picture of them shovelling the building into the street or a picture pre-building covering the street. So do you deny what the pictures show clearly or do you propose that large portions of the building were moved after the collapse?

Quote from: DaemonWulfAny objective person watching video of building 7 falling can very clearly see the building didn't tip sideways and fall over; it collapsed straight down.

I suppose you don't know how angles work then? Behold, the leaning Tower of Pisa is no longer leaning:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffixtours.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fleaning-tower-of-pisa-02.jpg&hash=21a93ba778ebd624667844646374234f5ec5bf6b)
Also in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk), one can clearly see the building falling to the left. Right above the last 'N' on the right in the banner that says "Lower Manhattan", you can see a little gap between building 7 and the stepped roof building infront. The gap increases in size as the building falls, which indicates what? That it didn't fall straight down, it fell left while falling. And this isn't even the angle that shows that it fell in the north/south direction, if the camera angle were from an east/west direction then it would have been more clear (based on the photographic evidence of the building after it fell). You'll also notice the collapse wasn't free fall speed.

So let's compare what we've learned so far with your initial objections:

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 25, 2011, 05:55:04 PMHad Building 7 taken a hit that scooped out 20 stories from the ground up, it's logical to assume the building would collapse sideways, as it's mass would be unbalanced.

It didn't collapse in on itself as you have conceded and the after photos show, and also the video. So according to what you said here, it matches that the building did have 20 stories scooped out.

Quote from: DaemonWulfThe videos all show Building 7 collapsing in on itself, landing in it's own footprint, at freefall speed, in perfect demolition style.

Building 7 collapsing in on itself, landing in it's own footprint - You conceded that this isn't the case.
at freefall speed - It clearly wasn't free fall speed (it took 13 seconds from the left penthouse falling until the building is no longer visible).
in perfect demolition style - It wasn't perfect demolition style as it didn't fall straight down, it fell on the building across the street and large bits of it completely covered the streets.

Sans goal post moving, we have these objections cleared up.

Quote from: DaemonWulfIf you can watch the video without at least seeing that much, you are probably right that we shouldn't have this conversation any longer.

I don't mind continuing the discussion, I just no longer have any delusions of your rationality on this topic. But do have fun.

Some threads like this can turn into flame wars, I hope this isn't going to be one of them  :(

Through multiple posts, Davin, you have twisted my replies to fit what you'd like me to say, so I will be painfully specific. I watched (not think, or believe, but saw in video) Building 7 collapse into it's own footprint, in a very short period of time (less than ten seconds). It did not appear to be structurally damaged in any of the photos or videos I have seen, before said collapse. Photos of the aftermath of the collapse show large amounts of debris in an area around the base of the building. Just because the building fell into it's own footprint, does not mean (nor have I suggested) that debris did not spread outward. Indeed, as the nature of matter is to move rather than just vanish into thin air, it's reasonable to assume the debris would spread outward. Regardless of what video evidence you're willing to ignore, you have proven conclusively that the building did not topple sideways; if it had, all the debris would be in one direction (where it landed) rather than spread around the base (consistent with a building collapsing downward from within). You can believe whatever you like, about the videos, the event, and me, for that matter. But trying to make my words fit your point (yes, I misused the word "concede") and going out of your way to patronize me has made this debate an exercise in futility, at least between the two of us. If you have points to address that haven't been beaten to death, please bring them up. Otherwise, I'd rather not participate in a flame war, as Tank mentioned.

I would like to know how I twisted your replies, I've tried my best to reperesent your points as accurately as possible. You claimed it was in perfect demolition style and a texbook example did you not? You claimed it was freefall speed did you not? You claimed it fell into it's own foot print did you not? You then conceded that it fell outside of it's footprint did you not? You agree that because of all the mess it made onto the streets that it wasn't a perfect or textbook example of a building demolition right?

How do you reconcile the building moving to the left when it falls as it shows in the video? How do you reconcile saying it fell straight down with he addition of these images showing it leaning to the south as it fell?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fwtc7f1.jpg&hash=781cc2b6a61eaf48e22324b6e9dcfd203f26926b)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fwtc7f2.jpg&hash=4cd37475b643c29084d0705e06e834b1d5666476)

How do you reconcile this image that clearly shows the building having some major structural problems with your persistence that there is no evidence of it?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fwtc7_Collapse_P.jpg&hash=b76c239e8e9e644f0c2fb83c1e2d323a4780d43e)

How do you reconcile it taking 13 seconds from the penthouse falling into the building until the building is no longer visible with you saying it took less than 10 seconds?

I guess these points have been beaten to death, but as far as the evidence shows, your initial objections are wrong.

Equating my following of the evidence to where is leads as "believing" what I want is also something I have objections with. I'm not holding a belief contrary to what the evidence shows. Sans any rational explanations that this evidence doesn't show structural damage, that it didn't fall at free fall speed and that it didn't fall straight down: accusing me of belief is inaccurate.

Sometimes clear is never clear enough. Sure, I'll try it again.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMYou claimed it was in perfect demolition style and a texbook example did you not?

Yes. As perfect and textbook as collapsing tons of steel and masonry can be considered, yes.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMYou claimed it was freefall speed did you not?

Yes.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMYou claimed it fell into it's own foot print did you not?

Yes.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMYou then conceded that it fell outside of it's footprint did you not?

No. I conceded that a large amount of debris spread outward, covering an area around the base of the building. As I'm not a physics professor I don't know all the proper terms, but when a mass compresses downward, some of that matter will be pushed outward at the bottom. I have not seen debris from Building 7 on the rooftops of other buildings as you claimed; I would be quite intrigued to find out how you identified such debris as belonging to Building 7 from photographs. 

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMYou agree that because of all the mess it made onto the streets that it wasn't a perfect or textbook example of a building demolition right?

No. I explained what happened with the debris, based on my observations and logical reasoning, above.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMHow do you reconcile the building moving to the left when it falls as it shows in the video?

If you're referring to the very small angle (maybe three degrees??) as a "lean" or "topple", this conversation is long past logic. I can absolutely admit there was a terribly small lean angle as the building collapsed downward. I'm not sure what that proves. Happens in demolitions all the time.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMHow do you reconcile saying it fell straight down with he addition of these images showing it leaning to the south as it fell?

As I noted above, three angles or less of lean doesn't mean much; the video clearly shows it fell downward, not over.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMHow do you reconcile this image that clearly shows the building having some major structural problems with your persistence that there is no evidence of it?

If you're asking about the crease in the roof, that's consistent with demolition; the demo crew blows a main structural beam to begin the collapse, and floors get blown out in sequence to insure the collapse remains straight.

Quote from: Davin on August 26, 2011, 07:37:11 PMHow do you reconcile it taking 13 seconds from the penthouse falling into the building until the building is no longer visible with you saying it took less than 10 seconds?

The collapse itself occurred at free-fall speed; I can't be terribly specific bout the penthouse, but I would imagine the main support beam (whose failure caused the crease in the roof and began the collapse) may have directly supported the penthouse. In that situation, I would imagine the penthouse would be immediately affected, whereas it may take a second or three for the mass of the building itself to collapse. This is assumption, as neither of us are demolition or engineering experts.

Have I explained myself well enough, or should I expect forms in the mail to sign?

And this is the problem with all such arguments.
Skeptic: I see a building falling in 13 seconds that falls to the left and a debris pattern suggesting non-intentional detonation.
Believer: I see a building falling in 10 seconds that falls in on itself and a debris pattern suggesting intentional detonation.

Skeptic: Ghosts are not real, but instead hoaxes and/or tricks of the mind.
Believer: My aunt saw a ghost in her house a few years ago.  My aunt never lies.

Skeptic: Angels are not real, but instead hoaxes and/or tricks of the mind.
Believer: A little girl survived a tornado in an old refrigerator, and said that a man with wings put her in the fridge.

Me: There is no real evidence that anybody but Lee Harvey shot JFK.
My father-in-law: I saw a video years ago that only a few people in the world have seen.  The government is covering that up.

I'm not saying there are never any coverups.  I'm not saying there are never any true conspiracies.  In all these cases, someone sufficiently motivated enough to believe the conspiracy will always have an answer to back up their point.  I may be wrong in the idea that there was no government involvement, coverup, or conspiracy involving 9/11.  It's quite possible that I just don't want to believe that my own government would orchestrate the murder of thousands of our own just so they could justify war, especially when they started a second war without the same justification, therefore that idea doesn't make sense anyway. 

What I'm saying is that in the cases listed above, the preponderance of evidence is with the skeptics.  Also in these cases, evidence that has proven to be manufactured has all come from the believer side.  While there may be something about each of these cases that cannot be explained, you can't make a winning case by taking a hole here and a hole there, while ignoring the vast majority of evidence.  Even if building 7 was intentionally detonated, it does not prove that the government had anything to do with 9/11, other than to perhaps demolish a building in a safe manner that was already highly unstable.  It doesn't prove that airplanes didn't fly into the twin towers, or the Pentagon, or Pennsylvania, or that terrorists weren't flying those airplanes.

I follow your point to the letter about the difference between skeptics and believers, Fester, and agree wholeheartedly. I have looked at the scenario skeptically and arrived at the conclusions I did because I could not refute them. In the case of 9/11, I really feel the believers are the ones that hold tight to the official story and can't separate what they're told from what they can see. I saw two planes hit the Twin Towers, and a third building collapse in demolition style. Then the report the people were given after an investigation was conducted was missing pages upon pages of information. I can't say for sure the government did it, any more than I can say aliens or ghosts or Elvis did it.. what I can say is there are a lot of unanswered questions. I don't know what happened with JFK, or the Gulf of Tonkin, or Area 51 or whatever; I haven't studied them enough to make an educated guess, but I can say there seems to be a preponderance of bullshit among all of them. I've watched a lot of video and pored over a lot of photos, and read a lot of reports about 9/11 trying to convince myself the conspiracists were wrong. I couldn't.  

Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 26, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
I follow your point to the letter about the difference between skeptics and believers, Fester, and agree wholeheartedly. I have looked at the scenario skeptically and arrived at the conclusions I did because I could not refute them. In the case of 9/11, I really feel the believers are the ones that hold tight to the official story and can't separate what they're told from what they can see. I saw two planes hit the Twin Towers, and a third building collapse in demolition style. Then the report the people were given after an investigation was conducted was missing pages upon pages of information. I can't say for sure the government did it, any more than I can say aliens or ghosts or Elvis did it.. what I can say is there are a lot of unanswered questions. I don't know what happened with JFK, or the Gulf of Tonkin, or Area 51 or whatever; I haven't studied them enough to make an educated guess, but I can say there seems to be a preponderance of bullshit among all of them. I've watched a lot of video and pored over a lot of photos, and read a lot of reports about 9/11 trying to convince myself the conspiracists were wrong. I couldn't.   

You saw it with your own eyes?

On the JFK thing, if you like conspiracy stuff there are a couple obsessed old men who are outside (every time I've been there) the JFK memorial/museum here in Dallas trying to sell tourists their books.  I'm sure they are interesting characters to talk to.  Inside the museum you can look out the actual window and study a little model of how the official story think the shots worked.  So you can get both sides of it.

Personally I think the official story seems reasonable enough; the only reason I even gave it much thought at all is because I live in Dallas and was forced to go through the museum (it was unfortunately boring for someone not into meticulous history).

And that's all I have to say about that ::forest gump::

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 26, 2011, 10:32:47 PM
You saw it with your own eyes?

Filtered through a television set, and then later a computer screen; like everyone else who wasn't there. I'm 90 miles north of there and try to stay out of the city unless I have a good reason to be there.

As the title says I'm just gonna reject alot of stuff up in here. okies.

*steps way back

Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 03:53:27 AM
As the title says I'm just gonna reject alot of stuff up in here. okies.

*steps way back

lmfao... you're better off that way. run while you can.

I think this topic is a conspiracy to keep atheists occupied.

Quote from: fester30 on August 27, 2011, 02:56:24 PM
I think this topic is a conspiracy to keep atheists occupied.

Damn. I knew something was up. Everybody, to the panzers before Westboro attacks!

Quote from: fester30 on August 27, 2011, 02:56:24 PM
I think this topic is a conspiracy to keep atheists occupied.

There is evidence for this, it's keeping us occupied! Definitely a conspiracy.

911 was obviously an inside job, just as 7/7 was. I have never been convinced about JFK though I wouldn't be surprised. I don't buy Diana's death was anything but accidental.

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 12:55:40 AM
911 was obviously an inside job, just as 7/7 was. I have never been convinced about JFK though I wouldn't be surprised. I don't buy Diana's death was anything but accidental.

I really don't want to debate it but 9/11 obviously an inside job? How is it obvious (consider it rhetorical unless you have info not already found on all the conspiracy sites)

What's 7/7....not rhetorical I really just don't know what it is.

for JFK...fyi, there is a clear line of sight from that window; so the official story seems believable to me (I live in dallas so I see the area often and went through the museum tour).  I actually have a book I'm about to read that claims to put the whole conspiracy thing to rest and will let you know if it seems worth reading.

Diana....I don't think I really care but the claim is that the car blew up and that's not a common accident.

Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:54:48 AM
Diana....I don't think I really care but the claim is that the car blew up and that's not a common accident.

No, that Merc looked just like an old Merc should have after being driven into a wall at a hundred and a lot (Just a hundred, if you insist on the Imperial system)...

Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:54:48 AM
I really don't want to debate it but 9/11 obviously an inside job? How is it obvious (consider it rhetorical unless you have info not already found on all the conspiracy sites)

What's 7/7....not rhetorical I really just don't know what it is.

I guess that depends upon the conspiracy site - I get all my conspiracy news of 911 at Let's Roll 911 (http://letsroll911.com/)

7/7 was a similar event in which the British Government did the same type of thing back in July 7, 2005. See Here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-77-bombing-photo-contradicts-official-story.html)

This is what I think:

1-9/11 is made from NSA to attack Afghanistan & Iraq to steal oil and drugs to make Bush and his people(political buddies) richer.

2-Vaccines are fine, but modern viruses are made in laboratories to sell vaccines, pig flu, bird flu etc.

3-Moon landing was a Cold War propaganda, the man never been outside our planet.

4-ET life is a fake made by some people who just want to sell books(At least the one who pretend contacts between humans and ETs).

5-JFK was not killed by a White supremacist, nor by the Mafia. He was killed from the NSA because he was not a racist unlike all the previous presidents of the USA starting from G.Washington.

6-No masonry rules the USA or the World, but the USA and many other countries are ruled by rich men alone, ordinary people are not taken under consideration.

7-Princess Diana was killed from the MI6 by order of Philip of Edinburgh, because she wanted to marry a Muslim.

8-The Illuminati were real, now they're a bunch of fools.

9-And MOSTLY, the CIA runs the drug traffic. That is the only way to explain why using drugs is legal, but selling them is illegal.

10-Hamas and Fatah are controlled by Israel to get more territories and to kick away the Palestinians.

What I don't think are real:

1-Zionist supremacists who control the entire planet.

2-Hitler was an atheist.

3-God's real. ;D

Quote from: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 11:02:24 PM
1-9/11 is made from NSA to attack Afghanistan & Iraq to steal oil and drugs to make Bush and his people(political buddies) richer.

Reasonably debunked from multiple angles.

Quote2-Vaccines are fine, but modern viruses are made in laboratories to sell vaccines, pig flu, bird flu etc.

Pharmaceutical industry does not need to spend a fuckload of money making new viruses just to develop vaccines against them. There are enough to go around as is. This "theory" is completely baseless.

Quote3-Moon landing was a Cold War propaganda, the man never been outside our planet.

Thoroughly debunked. Moon landing conspiracies I know of are utter bullshit. All of them.

Quote4-ET life is a fake made by some people who just want to sell books(At least the one who pretend contacts between humans and ETs).

Eh..? The presence of extraterrestrial life is a hypothesis, not a fact.

Quote5-JFK was not killed by a White supremacist, nor by the Mafia. He was killed from the NSA because he was not a racist unlike all the previous presidents of the USA starting from G.Washington.

From what little I know, I'm pretty sure they got the right killer who was serving his own agenda.

Quote6-No masonry rules the USA or the World, but the USA and many other countries are ruled by rich men alone, ordinary people are not taken under consideration.

This isn't even a conspiracy theory, just a fact of life.

Quote7-Princess Diana was killed from the MI6 by order of Philip of Edinburgh, because she wanted to marry a Muslim.

No, her drunk ass boyfriend drove a car she was in into a pillar. It was a case of a sudden stop with no seatbelts.

Quote8-The Illuminati were real, now they're a bunch of fools.

Are you talking about Illuminati as in Dan Brown or the German order? The latter did exist, but no longer.

Quote9-And MOSTLY, the CIA runs the drug traffic. That is the only way to explain why using drugs is legal, but selling them is illegal.

Using drugs is not legal in my country. Who runs the drug trade here, you suppose..? Criminals looking for large sums of easy money, that's who, just like in the rest of the world. You give the CIA too much credit.

Quote10-Hamas and Fatah are controlled by Israel to get more territories and to kick away the Palestinians.

Although they sometimes may indirectly and most probably unwittingly serve the Israeli agenda, that claim is baseless and faulty.

QuoteWhat I don't think are real:

1-Zionist supremacists who control the entire planet.

2-Hitler was an atheist.

3-God's real. ;D

True enough. Is there a conspiracy theory stating Hitler was an atheist..? What's the conspiracy there?

Well argued and well stated Asmo. TG, who needs conspiracies, reality is shocking enough. Wasn't the Iraqi WMD story enough for you? Beats the shit out of any conspiracy theory I've ever heard. And Phil the Greek was/is too stupid to and too insignificant be involved in anything so nefarious and so complicated. The only interesting thing about Di princess of hearts was which of the two of them (her or Chuckie) was further off in cloud cuckoo land.

Conspiracies have happened and do happen in history.  Most conspiracy theories out today don't strike me as very tenable, except that concerning JFK.

I think Thumpalumpacus is the best forum name I've encountered. It rolls rhythmically off the tongue.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 09, 2011, 09:17:41 PM
I think Thumpalumpacus is the best forum name I've encountered. It rolls rhythmically off the tongue.

...If only it did not include "Thump a lump"...

A lump might take it personally, y'know... (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fitpro.no%2Fsupportforum%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Funsure.gif&hash=aef2b2fd9cfd0acf253eab8d0d9b2ce0dcfb1c5e)

Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2011, 09:25:37 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 09, 2011, 09:17:41 PM
I think Thumpalumpacus is the best forum name I've encountered. It rolls rhythmically off the tongue.

...If only it did not include "Thump a lump"...

A lump might take it personally, y'know... (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fitpro.no%2Fsupportforum%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Funsure.gif&hash=aef2b2fd9cfd0acf253eab8d0d9b2ce0dcfb1c5e)

Being a relative newcomer here, I must ask: how did you become so grumpy and lumpy?  If you don't mind my asking.

It is a title I myself have claimed to suit my avatar, which is... Well, both grumpy and lumpy, really.

And that avatar suits me well because often I find myself in the grumpiest of moods.

EDIT: Oh, and as for how I became that way... It's rather complicated. It is a combination of my personality, influlenced by the life I lived, my experiences and conclusions drawn thereof, my general attitude towards others (For instance, I never give respect freely - has to be earned), a combo of some personality disorders and similar abbreviated issues and... It's just how I like myself the best, at the end of the day. It's the only me I wish to see in a mirror.

Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2011, 09:33:53 PM
It is a title I myself have claimed to suit my avatar, which is... Well, both grumpy and lumpy, really.

And that avatar suits me well because often I find myself in the grumpiest of moods.

EDIT: Oh, and as for how I became that way... It's rather complicated. It is a combination of my personality, influlenced by the life I lived, my experiences and conclusions drawn thereof, my general attitude towards others (For instance, I never give respect freely - has to be earned), a combo of some personality disorders and similar abbreviated issues and... It's just how I like myself the best, at the end of the day. It's the only me I wish to see in a mirror.

Thanks for the explanation.  I'll try not to get on your grumpy side too much.  My own personality disorders sometimes create problems - without any effort on my part.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 09, 2011, 09:17:41 PM
I think Thumpalumpacus is the best forum name I've encountered. It rolls rhythmically off the tongue.

It used to be fun when he became annoyed with philosophical trickery.

This should put things in perspective.
Upside down is a perspective you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeyUJx6nM3s

Thumpalumpacus is nearly a thousand, and a fish.  (He knows what I mean!)  Glad you're back, Thumpalumpacus.

My pet conspiracy is that the assassination of JFK was a partnership of the mob and the CIA. The mob, because they elected him into office but then JFK turned on them, allowing Bobby to prosecute them. The CIA, because JFK screwed up with Bay of Pigs.

Also, the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was terminally ill with cancer. The Mob could have promised to support his wife and children (if he had any), and he would have jumped to the moon if they'd asked.

Quote from: corgilover on January 12, 2012, 07:27:56 AM
My pet conspiracy is that the assassination of JFK was a partnership of the mob and the CIA. The mob, because they elected him into office but then JFK turned on them, allowing Bobby to prosecute them. The CIA, because JFK screwed up with Bay of Pigs.

Also, the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was terminally ill with cancer. The Mob could have promised to support his wife and children (if he had any), and he would have jumped to the moon if they'd asked.

I'm not fond of JFK conspiracy theories because there just isn't evidence to support.  However, at least this one doesn't deny Oswald being the shooter.

Quote from: fester30 on January 12, 2012, 11:17:22 PM

Quote from: corgilover on January 12, 2012, 07:27:56 AM
My pet conspiracy is that the assassination of JFK was a partnership of the mob and the CIA. The mob, because they elected him into office but then JFK turned on them, allowing Bobby to prosecute them. The CIA, because JFK screwed up with Bay of Pigs.

Also, the shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was terminally ill with cancer. The Mob could have promised to support his wife and children (if he had any), and he would have jumped to the moon if they'd asked.

I'm not fond of JFK conspiracy theories because there just isn't evidence to support.  However, at least this one doesn't deny Oswald being the shooter.

Occam's Razor demands that Oswald acted alone. It's so simple.  No need to add anyone or anything else.

However, I do believe that the phrase "grassy knoll" is a conspiracy of unknown interests in the city of Dallas, Texas to promote tourism.  Do you know of any other "grassy knolls" in the world other than the insignificant little hillock on Dealey Plaza at the site of the assassination?  And do you know of any other word in any language that has "ass" twice in a row, other than "assassination" (or it's cousin "assassin")?   It has to be a conspiracy.