Which Conspiracy Theories do you Accept and Reject

[DaemonWulf]

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

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

[Davin]

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?

[DaemonWulf]

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. 

[Davin]

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.

[DaemonWulf]

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.

[Davin]

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.

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.

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.

The 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.

[DaemonWulf]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

[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?

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.

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.

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 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).




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.

[fester30]

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.

[DaemonWulf]

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?

[Davin]

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.

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.

Certainly 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?

But 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?

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.

I suppose you don't know how angles work then? Behold, the leaning Tower of Pisa is no longer leaning:

Also in this video, 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:

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.

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.

The 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.

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.

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

[Tank]

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

[DaemonWulf]

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.

[Davin]

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?



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?


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.