911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?

[scherzkeks]

Super Slo Mo said:

In my view it's a largely meaningless statement, perpetuated by people who have absolutely no knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics or have any scientific background whatsoever.

It is as if you have read none of the research carried out by professionals on the matter, and this would in no way surprise me given the tone.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-article...

[durbster]

XslaneyX said:

The snippets i see from various theories are;
- Pristine passports found in the rubble of the hijackers

They weren't pristine but even so, what's the problem?

XslaneyX said:

- explosions from the buildings visually and audibly when they came down

There is absolutely no chance there was demolition involved. Just look at how much work goes into bringing down even a small block of flats. There's weeks of planning, dozens (hundred?) of people involved, miles and miles of fuse wire etc.

There are lots of things that might go bang in these circumstances. Those things went bang.

XslaneyX said:

- Building 7 being deliberately brought down(as it had top secret files on various things)

See above regarding demolition.

It'd be somewhat simpler to pop those top secret files in a van one evening and go and bury them in the desert.

XslaneyX said:

- Insurance being taken out a day before the event

Or, insurance renewed the same as every year.

XslaneyX said:

- Missile liveried up as a plane hitting the pentagon and not a real one due to the un-trained Hijacker not being able to complete such a manouver

I think even I could crash a plane without training...

But the hijackers were trained. And there were massive bits of plane all over the Pentagon.

XslaneyX said:

- CGI type software editing of the planes hitting the towers as the plane clips through the other side of the building

It unfolded live in front of millions of people on TV, and thousands who were there.

XslaneyX said:

- Passengers being offloaded to a remote airport and given new identities so that the planes could then be flown into the buildings remotely

Logistical impossibility aside, what would be the point of that?

XslaneyX said:

- staff being told not to go into work that morning as something was going to happen

Evidence, or hearsay?

I have a theoretical explanation for our tendency to believe conspiracy theories. First is obvious - it's quite exciting to think we're in an exclusive club that has access to information the public don't. It appeals in the way a backstage pass appeals.

But I also think it's perversely comforting to believe that we're still in control. In thinking it was actually a western Government behind it, it somehow feels better because it reassures us that our side is still in control. Better to convince ourselves there is no monster at the door, no matter what the reality is.

The idea that such horrific things can happen and there's nothing we can do about them is far more terrifying.

[GreigM]

scherzkeks said:

It is as if you have read none of the research carried out by professionals on the matter, and this would in no way surprise me given the tone.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-article...

Extensively debunked, and what causes him to be a "professional" in the matter. What is your definition of "professional"? I was involved in the project to recover human remains from the site, worked closely with the OEM, OCME, NYPD, Mayors Office etc and lived and breathed what went on on that day for a long period of time, does that make me more qualified to comment than a high school physics teacher with bees in his head? If you really think anything more happened on that day than a bunch of fantasists flew planes into buildings then you really need to find something useful to do with your time.

[scherzkeks]

GreigM said:

Extensively debunked.

Perhaps you prefer video evidence?

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-fact...

[Rollin]

scherzkeks said:

Super Slo Mo said:

In my view it's a largely meaningless statement, perpetuated by people who have absolutely no knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics or have any scientific background whatsoever.

It is as if you have read none of the research carried out by professionals on the matter, and this would in no way surprise me given the tone.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-article...

I despair that you think that is research.

[Super Slo Mo]

scherzkeks said:

It is as if you have read none of the research carried out by professionals on the matter, and this would in no way surprise me given the tone.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-article...

I have read them before. Nothing much has changed, it's the standard modus operandi of anyone trying to pull the wool over your eyes: Gain credibility by stating a few known truths, which then lends authority to the wild hypothesis that follows.

[scherzkeks]

Super Slo Mo said:

I have read them before.

Perhaps you need a refresher. The answer to your original question is clearly explained in the link.

Super Slo Mo said:

Gain credibility by stating a few known truths,

There are truths now? Interesting.

[AmiableChimp]

FGB said:

Vizsla said:

Oh, thought this was going to be a thread about how allegedly good Porsches are!

Same here - only came in to see the aggro .

And not one mention of that mid-90s boyband either

[Boring_Chris]

Does anybody think that the debate, or at least, asking questions, should be encouraged?

I don't believe that 9/11 was staged. I do believe that Nasa landed on the Moon. But the people being labelled nut jobs for calling those into question may very well be the same people who called out Savile whilst he was alive... Or Smith. And who ever imagined that was possible?

[Super Slo Mo]

scherzkeks said:

Super Slo Mo said:

I have read them before.

Perhaps you need a refresher. The answer to your original question is clearly explained in the link.

Super Slo Mo said:

Gain credibility by stating a few known truths,

There are truths now? Interesting.

Yes, like quoting gravity at 9.81 m/s^2 (32 feet per second squared), things that are either fairly common knowledge or easy to affirm.

[iphonedyou]

Super Slo Mo said:

Yes, like quoting gravity at 9.81 m/s^2 (32 feet per second squared), things that are either fairly common knowledge or easy to affirm.

So all we got was another batst crazy link.

Colour me shocked.

[John D.]

scherzkeks said:

Truckosaurus said:

Are there any major conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true?

Yes, many.

A few off the top of my head:

Operation Paperclip
Tuskegee Experiments
Operation Northwoods
Deliberate alcohol poisoning during prohibition
The Reichstag Fire
Fascist takeover of US govt (Smedly Butler's testimony uncovered this)
The Gulf of Tonkin
NSA surveillance

Looked up all of those on Wikipedia today, very interesting. Not sure I'd class those as conspiracy theories proven true though. More like conspiracies that were exposed due to whistle blowers / publishing of historical records.

A few of my friends got really into this type of thing a while ago. Seems to have died off a bit now thankfully, but my Facebook used to be full of utter BS which I called out from time to time. Some of it is quite entertaining (because that's what it is; entertainment).

[droopsnoot]

Boring_Chris said:

Does anybody think that the debate, or at least, asking questions, should be encouraged?

Absolutely. The world needs people to question things, and those in some countries don't have the luxury of being able to.

[motorizer]

Boring_Chris said:

Does anybody think that the debate, or at least, asking questions, should be encouraged?

I don't believe that 9/11 was staged. I do believe that Nasa landed on the Moon. But the people being labelled nut jobs for calling those into question may very well be the same people who called out Savile whilst he was alive... Or Smith. And who ever imagined that was possible?

Yeah, people should ask questions. People in positions of power shouldn't be able to get away with vile stuff.
However, many of the conspiracy theorists (particularly the nuttier ones) do just the opposite, they believe some garbage fantasy that they are spoon fed without even talking the time to look things up. If someone who was right about Savile was also spouting stuff ablout lizard overlords and chemtrails then maybe the genuine stuff wouldn't be believed.

[RanchoGrande]

I saw a video on youtube not long ago by some guy talking about how all the victims pictures had been photoshopped/edited and that some of the victims "didn't exist"

It was odd to say the least, but it was kind of interesting in some ways.

[jdw100]

scherzkeks said:

There are truths now? Interesting.

You remind me of that chap we had on a thread about supernatural stuff last year.

Lots of 'beliefs' but when a couple of us put up actual money (£2,000) to see a live demonstration of his friend's eyes turning bright blue when psychic powers were used - he suddenly vanished from the site.

[droopsnoot]

jdw100 said:

You remind me of that chap we had on a thread about supernatural stuff last year.

Lots of 'beliefs' but when a couple of us put up actual money (£2,000) to see a live demonstration of his friend's eyes turning bright blue when psychic powers were used - he suddenly vanished from the site.

I must have missed that part of the ghosties thread. I remember something similar with a poster who believed in the largest conspiracy theory of all - that traffic lights, particularly temporary road-works ones, can be changed by flashing headlights at them - and somehow went quiet when challenged to prove it.

[Thankyou4calling]

droopsnoot said:

I must have missed that part of the ghosties thread. I remember something similar with a poster who believed in the largest conspiracy theory of all - that traffic lights, particularly temporary road-works ones, can be changed by flashing headlights at them - and somehow went quiet when challenged to prove it.

Ahh but that isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact and I got my girlfriend to prove it.

Oh yes. She sat at every red light and flashed her lights and lo and behold every single one of them turned green. Not straight away but they eventually did.

Case proven :-)

[XslaneyX]

durbster said:

Evidence, or hearsay?

I have a theoretical explanation for our tendency to believe conspiracy theories. First is obvious - it's quite exciting to think we're in an exclusive club that has access to information the public don't. It appeals in the way a backstage pass appeals.

But I also think it's perversely comforting to believe that we're still in control. In thinking it was actually a western Government behind it, it somehow feels better because it reassures us that our side is still in control. Better to convince ourselves there is no monster at the door, no matter what the reality is.

The idea that such horrific things can happen and there's nothing we can do about them is far more terrifying.

None of what I mentioned is what I believe personally, just that I see these things propped up in the videos of people trying to "de-bunk" the official story etc.

With regards to the Missile hitting the pentagon and training etc, the saying was that no pilot could complete the turn it made and flew so low to the ground to impact the building "head on" hence the theory of it being a "cruise missile".
I remember when the whole event happened whilst i was still at school. Came home and put the news on to see the twin towers smoking and thought it was a new film being made and couldn't quite take it in.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

XslaneyX said:

- Insurance being taken out a day before the event

OK, let's deal with this. The policy was up for renewal, and negotiations had been ongoing and were concluded the day before.

But....the policy was renewed on a stop loss basis. Which means, if you have 2 houses worth a million each, you are a higher risk that someone with 1 house worth a million (you have 2 places where something could go wrong), but a lower risk than someone with one house worth £2 million (as with 2 houses at a million each the most you can lose in any one event is £1M)

So you insurer both houses on a stop loss basis, both covered for £1m but with a condition that you can only claim up to £1m. If a house burns down, you then have to buy back the further cover to cover your 2nd house.

The Twin Towers were covered on a stop loss basis. Both covered but claims capped at the value of 1. No one foresaw what actually happened.

So, to all you conspiracy theorists, why was the policy renewed on a stop loss basis. Why not renew on a full value basis covering both buildings?