9-11 Conspiracy Theories

[skyson]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Nano-thermite has aluminum and iron in it? Are you kidding? No one can conceive of how else aluminum (Airplanes are made of plastic,no wait...I think there might be aluminum in there, too) and iron (Isn't steel mostly iron? I think so!) could be found?

Gee, how could aluminum and iron be found together in really tiny (nano) particles in dust, wouldn't that require some kind of massive, intensely hot explosion, with tons of crushing pressure to grind the particles up into....dust?

Regarding the aluminum and iron matter, it has been thoroughly analyzed in the following two articles. I suggest you to give them a good read:

Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse

This is the Rant and Rave section, relaxed....

[rogermexico]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Regarding the aluminum and iron matter, it has been thoroughly analyzed in the following two articles. I suggest you to give them a good read:

Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse

This is the Rant and Rave section, relaxed....

You must be pulling my leg. "The journal of 911 studies"??

Since when do real scientists write like that? I was reading along, thinking about how this could only be less credible if it were in "The journal of cold fusion" or "The journal of Sasquatch studies" or "The journal of ufos" when,
can you believe it? The author actually starts talking about cold fusion!

LOL

What more needs to be said. Real scientists don't need to label their papers "scientific" - they demonstrate their adherence to the scientific method by showing you a reproducible experiment and making a compelling argument.

I have read thousands of actual scientific papers and written many too.

This is bullshit, people.

[Rajiv]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

This is bullshit, people.

Probably far less than your knee jerk reaction.

You could instead say I do not have an expertise to evaluate these, and I will rely upon my government and the people in power to tell me the total and complete truth.

That is a not unreasonable stance to take -- and that is the stance you have ipso facto taken.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

I have read thousands of actual scientific papers and written many too.

You are judging truth by its form. You even seem to consider it a bit of an insult to be presented with claims that are not in the form you consider proper.

May I suggest that sometimes the truth comes in other forms. Sometimes even it has to, for the respected and official channels you trust can be corrupted.

I'm with Rajiv on this one.

[rogermexico]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Probably far less than your knee jerk reaction.

You could instead say I do not have an expertise to evaluate these, and I will rely upon my government and the people in power to tell me the total and complete truth.

That is a not unreasonable stance to take -- and that is the stance you have ipso facto taken.

On the contrary, I apply the same skepticism to everything I read and to every "scientific" claim by any expert, whether pro or anti government. I feel as confident evaluating the claims of conspiracy theorists as I do our corrupt, overreaching goverment.

All these implausible conspiracy theories employ the fallacies of ubiquity and omniscience, as well as falling back on essentially unfalsifiable claims.

Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and now Obama were influenced and co-opted by the same forces in furtherance of the FIRE ecnomomy. However, it is ridiculous to think they all actually got together in a smoke filled room and engineered the current economic crash, just so they could later look stupid thrashing around trying to control it.

Similarly, it is clear that since the founding of our republic, there has been an urge to empire building. Bush 43 used 9/11 as an excuse to start a completely unnnecessary war in Iraq that has killed 4000 of our fine men, but to suppose that Bush planned a perfect, byzantine and leak-proof 9/11 plot and purposefully killed 3000 Americans just to start the war later is absurd, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence for it.

Governments everywhere and always use any excuse to expand their power, that is why I don't trust them to do anything.
However, that does not mean they supernaturally guide and direct everything they later exploit and have a perfectly leak-proof conspiracy to do it. Those are the fallacies of ubiquity and omniscience.

Never attribute to malice what can be as easily atrributed to incompetence

PS It always amuses me when some on the "left" think it is possible that our government is evil and powerful enough to have planned and executed a 9/11 conspiracy, yet trust the same government to provide their healthcare , plan the industrial economy for the common good and generally allocate scarce resources and take care of everyone. How could you want a government like that to even exist, much less trust it to take care of you?

[rogermexico]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

You are judging truth by its form. You even seem to consider it a bit of an insult to be presented with claims that are not in the form you consider proper.

May I suggest that sometimes the truth comes in other forms. Sometimes even it has to, for the respected and official channels you trust can be corrupted.

I'm with Rajiv on this one.

Hello Bovine Snake

What you say about truth coming in many forms is true, even a truism.
All I can say is that I apply equal skepticism to all allegedly scientific claims. If you knew in detail some of my negative opinions of what I read in well-respected professional journals, you would see that I am not playing favorites with sources

If you say I am applying a more rigorous standard to evaluate the evidence when I find the claim implausible a priori, I stand accused.

I am not insulted by weak claims, but I confess I am disappointed that this thread is on itulip. It taints the otherwise very well reasoned discourse and risks discrediting the other excellent and important ideas here.

[D-Mack]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

I am amazed that anybody would be impressed by that at all. There are so many holes I don't know where to start.

Who verifed the nano-thermite? How many independent labs?

Who verified the chain of custody?

Nano-thermite has aluminum and iron in it? Are you kidding? No one can conceive of how else aluminum (Airplanes are made of plastic,no wait...I think there might be aluminum in there, too) and iron (Isn't steel mostly iron? I think so!) could be found?

Gee, how could aluminum and iron be found together in really tiny (nano) particles in dust, wouldn't that require some kind of massive, intensely hot explosion, with tons of crushing pressure to grind the particles up into....dust?

Why use planes packed full of civilians, why not just blow up the buildings?

Why did the plane go down in Pennsylvania? Were the professional pilots who were in on the plot incompetent and just crashed it? I suppose the pentagon thermite is still sitting there or maybe they have spiritied the "tonnes" of thermite out without anyone noticing.

This thread is not worthy of itulip. I feel like when I meet someone at the gun range and find out they are a friendly racist when they start tossing off the "n" word.

I feel kind of ...soiled

Questioning everything is one thing, seeing omnipitent evil where there is only incomptence is just stupid.

This belongs with threads about JFK, the trilateral commission, racist rants about worldwide "jewry"

They tried to blow up the buildings in 93, but it didn't work because they were to stupid.




I think it's just basic stuff, you have evidence or eyewitness accounts of a phenomenon like molten steel and you are just trying to find out where it came from, because it can't be from the fires created by jet fuel.

And the planes were not that full.

As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running. What
concrete that wasn’t pulverized into
dust will continue to be removed for
weeks to come. The structural steel
is being removed and shipped by
barge to be recycled.

...
As bad as this disaster was, it could
have been much worse. TheWTC
has the capacity to hold some 51,000
people. Counting people who were
able to leave the building, and
people who for whatever reason
were not in the building, the survival
rate was approximately 90%. The
survival rate at the pentagon was
99.5%. Both planes were 78% and
74% empty.

...
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

[skyson]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

What more needs to be said. Real scientists don't need to label their papers "scientific" - they demonstrate their adherence to the scientific method by showing you a reproducible experiment and making a compelling argument.

I have read thousands of actual scientific papers and written many too.

This is bullshit, people.

You may have read thousands of scientific papers, but from your statement, it is clear you have not read the actual papers I mentioned. The fact is, since those articles have been written and published, no one scientific article has been written or published to challenge their positions. If you feel so qualified, would you venture to write one, pointing out what specific mistakes of their research and conclusion they may have? These are PEER REVIEW papers, you might as well write your review?

Also take a look at this paper. It is a two year of eight well qualified scientists' work, which is the one mentioned in the youtube video. If you think it is full of holes, again please write an essay, tear their conspiracy thesis into pieces in their face!

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

I feel your anger, but just calm down. I has no particular position on this, other than a very inquiring mind. If I don't see any strong enough arguments against their proposition other than shouting and yelling, I would go with their conclusion.

[rogermexico]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

You may have read thousands of scientific papers, but from your statement, it is clear you have not read the actual papers I mentioned.

OK, I admit I only read the first one. I'll read the other soon, I promise

These are PEER REVIEW papers, you might as well write your review?

There are lots of peer-reviewed papers that are garbage. When your peers all believe the same conspiracy theory, what would you expect?

If I don't see any strong enough arguments against their proposition other than shouting and yelling, I would go with their conclusion.

No, in the science I practice the null hypothesis is the default positon. the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not me.

I seriously doubt if you automatically believe every proposition that cannot be disproved. I hope not.

I am not convinced.

[tombat1913]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Still?

This is rant and rave. There's a joke thread here, too. BFD. Don't like it, don't click on the thread.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that after honest fact based debate on the subject one of the FRED's will come along and say 'airplanes hit the buildings and they fell end of story.' and then shut down the thread. They've made it clear they don't want it on itulip, not me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

On the contrary, I apply the same skepticism to everything I read and to every "scientific" claim by any expert, whether pro or anti government. I feel as confident evaluating the claims of conspiracy theorists as I do our corrupt, overreaching goverment.

All these implausible conspiracy theories employ the fallacies of ubiquity and omniscience, as well as falling back on essentially unfalsifiable claims.

The video above was short on details. But the papers linked above had quite a bit more detail. Reporting ones careful observations of thermite found in dust samples, also carefully reporting how those measurements were done and how those dust samples were obtained, is not a conspiracy theory, much less one employing such fallacies.

Your confidence in evaluating these reports is misplaced.

Many of us, likely myself included, seem to fall into a common trap.

For those conclusions presented by people or in forums with which we are sympathetic, we use some reasonable discretion in separating the wheat from the chaff. If there is an error by that person or in that forum, we do not discard anything else ever said by them or in there as falacious.

But for those conclusions coming from sources we find inherently disagreeable, we tend to lump together broad swaths of claims, position, theories, propaganda and evidence, as all bad, for the sole reason they come from a source we don't like. We do not hesitate to rebut some reasonable statement from "them" with a reply such as "but those idiots said such and such stupid thing!"

rogermexico, the strength of the venom, and the weakness of the logic, and the flamboyance of the rhetoric with which you attack here surprises me.

I do not know what is the real cause of this venom, but it does not serve you well.

[Diarmuid]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

No, in the science I practice the null hypothesis is the default positon. the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not me.

I seriously doubt if you automatically believe every proposition that cannot be disproved. I hope not.

Its interesting you should say that, yet the collapse of WTC tower 7 is officially claimed to have been due to fire damage, this as far as I am led to believe has never happened before or since. Yet the burden of proof seems to lie with those whom assume the null hypothesis as their default position - funny that

That on the other hand does not go to say there were not unique circumstances in the collapse of the WTC towers but in no way should this fact change where the burden of proof lies imo.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

All these implausible conspiracy theories employ the fallacies of ubiquity and omniscience, as well as falling back on essentially unfalsifiable claims.

The buildings fell down. There is substantial direct evidence and indirect evidence of thermite playing a major role in their falling. For Bldg 7 especially, there has been no other credible hypothesis ever presented that I've seen to explain its fall. Even for the twin towers, I have seen no other hypothesis that comes close to explaining what happened. Those two planes did not, by themselves, cause those three buildings to crash as the did.

That part is clear by now to me. Do you disagree with that much?

Something about this discussion threatens people. I am not sure I even care much anymore why.

[marvenger]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

you haven't heard the saying 'in politics nothing happens by accident'. during the second world war a bomber flew into the empire state building during bad weather, the building did not fall down. When the world towers were built they were built to more than withstand the impact of the biggest plane of its time fully loaded and at cruising speed. The impact sustained by the towers, similar to the impact described above, was designed to be witheld, the planes did not bring them down, look it up yourself.

[D-Mack]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Its interesting you should say that, yet the collapse of WTC tower 7 is officially claimed to have been due to fire damage, this as far as I am led to believe has never happened before or since. Yet the burden of proof seems to lie with those whom assume the null hypothesis as their default position - funny that

That on the other hand does not go to say there were not unique circumstances in the collapse of the WTC towers but in no way should this fact change where the burden of proof lies imo.

It can't be from explosives, because they would have been too loud.
There are eyewitnesses for explosions or better were, because one is dead.

Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says
By ERIC LIPTON


...

Dr. Sunder said the investigators considered the possibility that explosives were used, but ruled it out because the noise associated with such an explosion would have been 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert, he said, and detectable from as far as a half a mile away. He said that interviews with eyewitnesses and a review of video taken that day provided no evidence of a sound that loud just before the collapse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/ny...gewanted=print