Conspiracy Theories for Cynics

Conspiracy Theories for Cynics

Author
Discussion

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
maxxy5 said:
That's a great example of faulty conspiracy thinking, twisting one insignificant quote from a powerful person into something meaningful. What is more likely, that he was talking about the firemen, or hinting at a giant conspiracy?

I used to be interested in investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories and wasted too much time trying to explain it to people, I no longer bother. It's all complete bks. If you really want to get into it, check out the internationalskeptics.com forum (formerly the james randi forum) where you will find people who know far more than is healthy about 9/11.

It's only really interesting in so far as it demonstrates how supposedly intelligent people can lose their minds once they get hooked into a narrative.

Anyway, as far as I can remember, Silverstein actually lost money from WTC7.
Do you mind telling me what it was that finally convinced you that official narrative was definitely the truth and everything else was a load of bks?

It is a far easier view point to hold, and I would be happier if I could just accept that I have just fallen into a trap.

For example, I don't see how you could once believe there might be something to these alternative theories, but now believe that a video of the building owner saying something like that is insignificant when what he said appears to have played out.

I don't normally bother getting into these discussions any more either, it doesn't benefit me, or anyone elsesmile

DanL

6,177 posts

264 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Do you mind telling me what it was that finally convinced you that official narrative was definitely the truth and everything else was a load of bks?

It is a far easier view point to hold, and I would be happier if I could just accept that I have just fallen into a trap.
Turn it on its head - let's say there's a conspiracy, and then ask the questions "who conspired, and to what end?".

Forget WTC7 for a moment - do you believe that two planes hit the WTC? If so, if it wasn't terrorism then who staged this and why? If they did hit, why is it hard to believe that buildings around the towers would be hit by falling debris? Is it surprising that someone might fear that building will also collapse and decide to get people out rather than leave them to fight a fire in a building that's probably already lost and will need to be destroyed and rebuilt anyway?

Lastly, accept that coincidences happen more often than you'd think, and accept that if one chain of events can add up to a conspiracy then another chain can add up to the official version of events. Now ask yourself why you choose to believe that the minority view is credible, but the official version is not?

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
DanL said:
urn it on its head - let's say there's a conspiracy, and then ask the questions "who conspired, and to what end?".

Forget WTC7 for a moment - do you believe that two planes hit the WTC? If so, if it wasn't terrorism then who staged this and why? If they did hit, why is it hard to believe that buildings around the towers would be hit by falling debris? Is it surprising that someone might fear that building will also collapse and decide to get people out rather than leave them to fight a fire in a building that's probably already lost and will need to be destroyed and rebuilt anyway?

Lastly, accept that coincidences happen more often than you'd think, and accept that if one chain of events can add up to a conspiracy then another chain can add up to the official version of events. Now ask yourself why you choose to believe that the minority view is credible, but the official version is not?
To address your points one at a time.

The conspirators would have been those with the power to do so, and the end game would have been everything that has happened since then,eg wars for resources / destabilising the Middle East/ protecting the Dollar, and allowing tighter controls on the population at home (homeland security etc)

Yes I believe that aircraft flew into the towers, although there was some very questionable editing on one particular clip I have seen. (On the official 9/11 DVD filmed by the French documentary crew)
Yes I know that surrounding buildings were virtually destroyed by falling debris , every other building in the WTC complex was damaged way worse that WTC7 but none of them actually collapsed, they had to be demolished even though half of them Were just shells.
Yes, I agree with the decision to give up on the firefighting efforts inside WTC7, with everything else that was going on, one more empty building didn't really matter. (But, I can't get my head around it collapsing into its own footprint when every other similar building in history has done what it was designed to do in a fire eg: not collapse)

And it was never explained (I don't think) how people knew it was about to collapse, there was no reason I can see that anyone should have expected that to happen. But then I saw the building owner explaining that's decision was made to Demolish it. I can't think of a single reason why a man in his position would use such a term if that's not what was actually discussed.
If what he meant was that a decision was made to remove the workers to a position of safety as the building was lost, he would have said that, but what he said was they decided to pull it, and they got they men out and then he watched the building come down.
I seem to remember the mayor also announcing that it was about to come down. And of course the BBC reporting it had just collapsed but they were about twenty minutes early.

I find it very difficult to just 'forget' WTC7 as there are so many questions that have gone unanswered.

Once that got my attention of course lots of other events on the day started to stand out too, like the other planes that crashed leaving barely any evidence of plane crashes. Again, very very unusual!

I honestly wish I didn't have any doubts, and I just try not to even think about it these days but occasionally I get sucked back in smile

ETA:

Then there was the whole Osama Bin Laden thing. A very elusive man who just happened to be a friend of George Bush (well, the two families had a lot of history) and had allegedly been receiving treatment in the US to help him with a serious kidney condition. So a man potentially at deaths door, who was never really seen again after that point apart from some questionable sightings and some pictures of him apparently getting younger year by year ( possibly the dialysis did its job). And then when they finally track him down , there is no evidence of it and I understand the team that captured him are no longer around to talk about it.

I wish I wasn't so sceptical, I really do!!









Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 22 June 06:43

DanL

6,177 posts

264 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
I wish I wasn't so sceptical, I really do!!
OK - well, I don't have the expertise or the time to address each of the items you raise factually. Instead, I'll just ask that you apply the same level of critical thinking to the conspiracy theories as you do to the official version, and suggest some things you may want to consider.

  • The conspirators would have been those with the power to do so, and the end game would have been everything that has happened since then
It's very hard to show that "they" didn't need to do whatever it is they did to get whatever it is they wanted when they aren't named. However, there's a list as long as your arm (Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf War I, Bay of Pigs, etc.) of times the US has gone to war. Will someone have profited from war? Yes - some people always do. The question is, if they're as powerful as you believe did they need to do this in order to get a war, have these tighter controls on the local population, etc?

  • I can't get my head around it collapsing into its own footprint when every other similar building in history has done what it was designed to do in a fire eg: not collapse
If I could show you a building which did collapse as a result of a fire, would you believe me, or would you say "ah, but that one was a special circumstance because of X"? Then consider whether having another building fall on top of it would be a special circumstance for the building you don't believe to have been capable of collapse.

  • it was never explained (I don't think) how people knew it was about to collapse, there was no reason I can see that anyone should have expected that to happen. But then I saw the building owner explaining that's decision was made to Demolish it. I can't think of a single reason why a man in his position would use such a term if that's not what was actually discussed.
You assert that people knew it was about to collapse - they may well not have known. However, as other building had fallen, would it not be likely that they would have assumed the worst and taken a cautious approach, given that you accept the building was done for anyway? You also assert that "pull it" is a well known demolition term - however, couldn't "it" refer to anything, including whatever fire fighting operation was underway at the time?

  • of course the BBC reporting it had just collapsed but they were about twenty minutes early.
Is it not possible that the just made a mistake in the chaos, as they themselves suggest here?

  • I find it very difficult to just 'forget' WTC7 as there are so many questions that have gone unanswered.
It's important to examine your conclusions, as you say they have led you to the other larger and less likely ones from this foundation. You need to know if you're building these conclusions on sand or rock in order to consider whether they are likely to be correct.

  • the other planes that crashed leaving barely any evidence of plane crashes. Again, very very unusual!
This has been well covered and debunked on the web. You can choose to believe the debunkers or not. smile

  • I wish I wasn't so sceptical, I really do!!
Apply that scepticism in the same manner to the conspiracy theories, and see if they stand up. I don't believe they do - anything and everything that the people who come up with the theories say was achieved could more easily have been achieved by other means, if you believe that "they" have the power to pull off what is claimed.

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
shakotan said:
Taking the politics out of it, there's still a lot behind the science of 9/11 that doesn't add up.
Yes, there is. Which is why A&E's work is so valuable.


dudleybloke

19,717 posts

185 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
What happened to the buildings on 9-11 are a distraction from the real mystery.

Planes got hijacked by Saudis, yet the USA deports a couple of hundred Israelis then invades Iraq and Afghanistan.

And everyone who was responsible for the defence of the skies of America that day got a promotion afterwards. Despite their failures.

Then the fact that they claim nobody thought that terrorists could fly planes into buildings despite carrying out exercises on this exact situation the year previously.

Then you have Bush and Cheney refusing to give evidence seperatly to "make sure they got their stories straight", their words not mine.

And all those who say there could be no conspiracy because people would have talked, some did talk, but they got called crazy and then most of them died in strange circumstances.

We will never know the truth about it. But it certsinly wasn't a terminally ill Saudi hiding in a cave in Afghanistan that did it all.


Vaud

50,287 posts

154 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
We will never know the truth about it. But it certsinly wasn't a terminally ill Saudi hiding in a cave in Afghanistan that did it all.
Of course... that would be way too embarrassing a failure...

The great thing about conspiracy theories that involve lots of people is just that - they involve lots of people. People tend to leak.

They couldn't even keep the NSA methods safe from someone downloading them on a USB stick, and there were relatively few admins that had access.

A wider conspiracy relying on hundreds or thousands of people? Nope, I don't buy it.

limpsfield

5,871 posts

252 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
And all those who say there could be no conspiracy because people would have talked, some did talk, but they got called crazy and then most of them died in strange circumstances.
Most of them? Is there a link to this? It sounds incredibly fanciful.

alock

4,224 posts

210 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Yes I know that surrounding buildings were virtually destroyed by falling debris , every other building in the WTC complex was damaged way worse that WTC7 but none of them actually collapsed, they had to be demolished even though half of them Were just shells.
This is an interesting video. The link should take you straight to the side-by-side simulation.
https://youtu.be/uFJa9WUy5QI?t=120

The interesting question to ask after watching this video is whether you have seen any conspiracy explanation for the penthouse structures collapsing first?

Speed_Demon

2,662 posts

187 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
R.E. the fire causing the collapse, I believe the fire was so problematic as the huge impact from being hit by an airliner essentially blew some of the fire protection off the internal structure.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
To address your points one at a time.

The conspirators would have been those with the power to do so, and the end game would have been everything that has happened since then,eg wars for resources / destabilising the Middle East/ protecting the Dollar, and allowing tighter controls on the population at home (homeland security etc)

Yes I believe that aircraft flew into the towers, although there was some very questionable editing on one particular clip I have seen. (On the official 9/11 DVD filmed by the French documentary crew)
Yes I know that surrounding buildings were virtually destroyed by falling debris , every other building in the WTC complex was damaged way worse that WTC7 but none of them actually collapsed, they had to be demolished even though half of them Were just shells.
Yes, I agree with the decision to give up on the firefighting efforts inside WTC7, with everything else that was going on, one more empty building didn't really matter. (But, I can't get my head around it collapsing into its own footprint when every other similar building in history has done what it was designed to do in a fire eg: not collapse)

And it was never explained (I don't think) how people knew it was about to collapse, there was no reason I can see that anyone should have expected that to happen. But then I saw the building owner explaining that's decision was made to Demolish it. I can't think of a single reason why a man in his position would use such a term if that's not what was actually discussed.
If what he meant was that a decision was made to remove the workers to a position of safety as the building was lost, he would have said that, but what he said was they decided to pull it, and they got they men out and then he watched the building come down.
I seem to remember the mayor also announcing that it was about to come down. And of course the BBC reporting it had just collapsed but they were about twenty minutes early.

I find it very difficult to just 'forget' WTC7 as there are so many questions that have gone unanswered.

Once that got my attention of course lots of other events on the day started to stand out too, like the other planes that crashed leaving barely any evidence of plane crashes. Again, very very unusual!

I honestly wish I didn't have any doubts, and I just try not to even think about it these days but occasionally I get sucked back in smile

ETA:

Then there was the whole Osama Bin Laden thing. A very elusive man who just happened to be a friend of George Bush (well, the two families had a lot of history) and had allegedly been receiving treatment in the US to help him with a serious kidney condition. So a man potentially at deaths door, who was never really seen again after that point apart from some questionable sightings and some pictures of him apparently getting younger year by year ( possibly the dialysis did its job). And then when they finally track him down , there is no evidence of it and I understand the team that captured him are no longer around to talk about it.

I wish I wasn't so sceptical, I really do!!









Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 22 June 06:43
Show me a single piece of evidence that Osama bin Laden ever set foot in the US.

TwistingMyMelon

6,385 posts

204 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
lol why the buildings collapsed has been covered in great detail, with mathematical equations in detailed structural reports by experts in their field.

Then some inbred streak of piss does a simplistic youtube video and thick people believe this, they then say "well show me evidence to why it happened" , when all the evidence is needed in the detailed reports on the collapse, but as this requires proper reading and comprehension skills it is ignored

I read a detailed interview with an expert on demolition , saying it would not easily be possible to bring the towers down by demolition, he said it would take a large team weeks and probably months to lay all the needed explosives, how on earth would this be done with no one seeing them, no one squealing afterwards and no paper trail....how do they physically get the stuff in the building...

What makes me really laugh is when people go "well buildings don't just collapse like that"....Yet their views on how "buildings should collapse" come from watching Hollywood films!

Edited by TwistingMyMelon on Thursday 22 June 15:08

Colonial

13,553 posts

204 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
TwistingMyMelon said:
lol why the buildings collapsed has been covered in great detail, with mathematical equations in detailed structural reports by experts in their field.

Then some inbred streak of piss does a simplistic youtube video and thick people believe this, they then say "well show me evidence to why it happened" , when all the evidence is needed in the detailed reports on the collapse, but as this requires proper reading and comprehension skills it is ignored

I read a detailed interview with an expert on demolition , saying it would not easily be possible to bring the towers down by demolition, he said it would take a large team weeks and probably months to lay all the relevel explosives, how on earth would this be done with no one seeing them, no one squealing afterwards and no paper trail.

What makes me really laugh is when people go "well buildings don't just collapse like that"....Yet their views on how "buildings should collapse" come from watching Hollywood films!
Yep.

There is so much actual proof out there but some poor deluded idiots would prefer to watch a 6m youtube video made by a fedora wearing neckbeard and believe that instead.

Still. Makes it easy to identify the idiots I guess.

Hainey

4,381 posts

199 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
What happened to the buildings on 9-11 are a distraction from the real mystery.

Planes got hijacked by Saudis, yet the USA deports a couple of hundred Israelis then invades Iraq and Afghanistan.

And everyone who was responsible for the defence of the skies of America that day got a promotion afterwards. Despite their failures.

Then the fact that they claim nobody thought that terrorists could fly planes into buildings despite carrying out exercises on this exact situation the year previously.

Then you have Bush and Cheney refusing to give evidence seperatly to "make sure they got their stories straight", their words not mine.

And all those who say there could be no conspiracy because people would have talked, some did talk, but they got called crazy and then most of them died in strange circumstances.

We will never know the truth about it. But it certsinly wasn't a terminally ill Saudi hiding in a cave in Afghanistan that did it all.
You do realise every single point you illustrate there about the human element has been disproven?

Although I suppose it comes down to what website you read. Hint, not every website tells the truth.

If they did, there would be hot milfs wanting to bang me in my postcode. I'm pretty sure their isn't.

DanL

6,177 posts

264 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Hainey said:
If they did, there would be hot milfs wanting to bang me in my postcode. I'm pretty sure their isn't.
Have you checked? You should check and report back, just in case... I'm, er, asking for a friend.

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Zod said:
how me a single piece of evidence that Osama bin Laden ever set foot in the US.
Hold on, let me just dig out a photo I personally took of him and had him sign during his treatment.

What evidence would you find acceptable, it was just Something I remember reading somewhere, about 15 yrs ago, no doubt from a source that you would immediately poo poo.

So I won't bother looking, but there is lots of 'chatter' about his health problems which I am sure you could find if you were interested. It might not be accurate though.

One of the issues around conspiracies is that is often hard/impossible to find proof, hence the theory part!

The events of 9/11 were the results of a conspiracy which ever way you look at it, unless one person did it on his own and didn't discuss his plan with anybody.


Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
DanL said:
K - well, I don't have the expertise or the time to address each of the items you raise factually. Instead, I'll just ask that you apply the same level of critical thinking to the conspiracy theories as you do to the official version, and suggest some things you may want to consider.

  • The conspirators would have been those with the power to do so, and the end game would have been everything that has happened since then
It's very hard to show that "they" didn't need to do whatever it is they did to get whatever it is they wanted when they aren't named. However, there's a list as long as your arm (Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf War I, Bay of Pigs, etc.) of times the US has gone to war. Will someone have profited from war? Yes - some people always do. The question is, if they're as powerful as you believe did they need to do this in order to get a war, have these tighter controls on the local population, etc?

>>>I think there were dubious events that were used as justification for most of those conflicts too, but that is probably best left for another threadsmile

  • I can't get my head around it collapsing into its own footprint when every other similar building in history has done what it was designed to do in a fire eg: not collapse
If I could show you a building which did collapse as a result of a fire, would you believe me, or would you say "ah, but that one was a special circumstance because of X"? Then consider whether having another building fall on top of it would be a special circumstance for the building you don't believe to have been capable of collapse.

>>>I would be very interested to see your example, provided it was a somewhat comparable structure, at the very least a tallish, modernish building with a steel frame and not a warehouse or something smile
You don't need to find a building that had another building fall on top off it though, as the twin towers did not fall onto WTC7 although some damage was done at the base of the building that maybe went up four or five floors if I remember. (I used to lots of pictures but I don't have them anymore.)

  • it was never explained (I don't think) how people knew it was about to collapse, there was no reason I can see that anyone should have expected that to happen. But then I saw the building owner explaining that's decision was made to Demolish it. I can't think of a single reason why a man in his position would use such a term if that's not what was actually discussed.
You assert that people knew it was about to collapse - they may well not have known. However, as other building had fallen, would it not be likely that they would have assumed the worst and taken a cautious approach, given that you accept the building was done for anyway? You also assert that "pull it" is a well known demolition term - however, couldn't "it" refer to anything, including whatever fire fighting operation was underway at the time?

>>>you are quite right, he may have been referring to the operation rather than the people involved, that would be proper grammar. But WTC7's structural damage was restricted to one corner and it had fires spread throughout but it wasn't exactly an inferno or anything. The official report only came up with a 'maybe this happened' it wasn't able to conclusively explain the total and instantaneous failure of the entire steel frame.

  • of course the BBC reporting it had just collapsed but they were about twenty minutes early.
Is it not possible that the just made a mistake in the chaos, as they themselves suggest here?


>>> yes it is possible.

  • I find it very difficult to just 'forget' WTC7 as there are so many questions that have gone unanswered.
It's important to examine your conclusions, as you say they have led you to the other larger and less likely ones from this foundation. You need to know if you're building these conclusions on sand or rock in order to consider whether they are likely to be correct.

>>>agreed

  • the other planes that crashed leaving barely any evidence of plane crashes. Again, very very unusual!
This has been well covered and debunked on the web. You can choose to believe the debunkers or not. smile

>>>I might have to revisit this as to be perfectly honest, at the time I was already so invested in the conspiracy I may have overlooked the official explanations. I just remember seeing a crash site in a field and there was just a small gash in the ground and no plane to speak of.

  • I wish I wasn't so sceptical, I really do!!
Apply that scepticism in the same manner to the conspiracy theories, and see if they stand up. I don't believe they do - anything and everything that the people who come up with the theories say was achieved could more easily have been achieved by other means, if you believe that "they" have the power to pull off what is claimed.
>>> I will give it a go smile

Apologies for the horrible formatting , I am using a mobile device .


Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 22 June 16:00

iphonedyou

9,234 posts

156 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Hold on, let me just dig out a photo I personally took of him and had him sign during his treatment.

What evidence would you find acceptable, it was just Something I remember reading somewhere, about 15 yrs ago, no doubt from a source that you would immediately poo poo.

So I won't bother looking, but there is lots of 'chatter' about his health problems which I am sure you could find if you were interested. It might not be accurate though.

One of the issues around conspiracies is that is often hard/impossible to find proof, hence the theory part!

The events of 9/11 were the results of a conspiracy which ever way you look at it, unless one person did it on his own and didn't discuss his plan with anybody.
Well that's told you, Zod.

mko9

2,327 posts

211 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
TwistingMyMelon said:
What makes me really laugh is when people go "well buildings don't just collapse like that"....Yet their views on how "buildings should collapse" come from watching Hollywood films!
Similarly, I recall the people who claim the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile, not an airplane. I had to laugh at all the people who claimed "it sounded like a missile", when 99.99999% of the general public and the VAST majority of even the military have never been anywhere near an actual missile being fired. Their knowledge of what a missile sounds like is based upon Hollywood movies and TV shows.

DanL

6,177 posts

264 months

Thursday 22nd June 2017
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
DanL said:
  • I can't get my head around it collapsing into its own footprint when every other similar building in history has done what it was designed to do in a fire eg: not collapse
If I could show you a building which did collapse as a result of a fire, would you believe me, or would you say "ah, but that one was a special circumstance because of X"? Then consider whether having another building fall on top of it would be a special circumstance for the building you don't believe to have been capable of collapse.

>>>I would be very interested to see your example, provided it was a somewhat comparable structure, at the very least a tallish, modernish building with a steel frame and not a warehouse or something smile
You don't need to find a building that had another building fall on top off it though, as the twin towers did not fall onto WTC7 although some damage was done at the base of the building that maybe went up four or five floors if I remember. (I used to lots of pictures but I don't have them anymore.)
You're not going to like it as it was built a couple of decades earlier than WTC 7, but this will have to do from a quick Google. A tower block that was on fire, and collapsed - I expect it will have been a concrete and steel building, as that's pretty much the way you build tall things.

It's a link that's been shown elsewhere in the thread, but having watched it, it saves me some typing - you may want to watch this video which covers the collapse of WTC 7. This asserts that fire had been burning unchecked for many hours.

This document here gives some of the UK fire resistance requirements for buildings. As you can see in table A2, these days in the UK you'd need to design a tall building to withstand 120 minutes of fire, and it would have to have a sprinkler system installed. Given this, a building remaining standing and on fire for many hours before it collapses with no sprinkler system in operation is actually quite good going.

I'll stop at this point - I'm on holiday from tomorrow, and I'm sure you can do further Googling yourself and make your mind up one way or another. Just consider that your conspirators are supposed to be very powerful people who can sway opinion and arrange for people to be vanished. Given that, would it not be easier to sway public opinion by any number of other means? In point of fact, if they're that powerful why do they need to sway public opinion at all? smile