Which Conspiracy Theories do you Accept and Reject

[DaemonWulf]

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

You 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.

You claimed it was freefall speed did you not?

Yes.

You claimed it fell into it's own foot print did you not?

Yes.

You 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. 

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?

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

How 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.

How 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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

[fester30]

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.

[DaemonWulf]

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.  

[xSilverPhinx]

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?

[Whitney]

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::

[DaemonWulf]

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.

[Medusa]

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

*steps way back

[DaemonWulf]

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.

[fester30]

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

[DaemonWulf]

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

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

[xSilverPhinx]

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

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

[Earthling]

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.

[Whitney]

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.

[Asmodean]

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)...

[Earthling]

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

7/7 was a similar event in which the British Government did the same type of thing back in July 7, 2005. See Here