9-11 Conspiracy

Loch Ness Monster is all on your list

How many millions of people do you think have seen that photo? Don't you think that if it was from a missile or bomb that someone would have recognized it as such and said something?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

as I said before, I'm pretty much neutral on the subject but I just want to get some other thoughts

Take a look at this video, Page not found - 9-11 Research doesn't that look like controlled demolition

Well, given the unprecedented coverage those events generated, and the fact that nobody in the main stream media is even mentioning these various theories other than to ridicule them, I'm hard pressed to understand a position of neutrality.If there was any rational reason whatsoever to suspect anything other than the generally accepted story, why wouldn't that fact have made headlines and spawned countless investigations?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

In some ways it does. In some ways it doesn't.Do you have any idea how much time it takes to prepare for a controlled demolition? Do you have any idea how many explosives have to be planted? If you don't, let me assure you that there's absolutely no way that that building could have been rigged for a controlled demolition without the people that were in the building before the plane crashes seeing something unusual.And, if it were a controlled demolition, can you possibly imagine that the New York City firefighters who lost dozens of friends and coworkers would have covered up the real story behind those deaths?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack Take a look at this whole website.

Most conspiracy theorists do a remarkable job of raising questions, and a really crappy job of answering them.Does that website answer this question: Do you have any answer to that question?I've spent hours and hours looking at various screw loose sites. I'm not particularly inclined to kill any more brain cells wading through another one. If you want to pick out what you consider the most compelling arguments and present them here, I'll respond. But for the most part, this forum is for people to present their own arguments, not just link to arguments from other places. Otherwise, I'd simply tell you to read the site you linked the debris photo from, because that seemed to explain at lot of the nutty ideas some folks have.In any event, if your only purpose here is to raise questions, but not answer any questions raised by your ideas, I think you'll find folks will rather quickly tire of you.I'll check back here another time to see if you have anything further of substance to say, but since the ball game is over, I'm going to hit the hottub before bed.Welcome to EvC. I hope you find your time here educational and enjoyable.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The answer is that that question is irrelevant. In mainstream american media, it gets absolutely no headlines, however if you broaden your media intake you would know that other countries in different languages and cultures have been giving this story quite a bit of attention. Just recently Japan has been bringing up specific questions in their government. Canada has done documentaries. And so has sweden. There are countless examples, it just comes down to broadening your media intake to other sources besides fox, cnn, and nbc. Not only that but our own government has called for a reinvestigation of 911, ironically right after bush went out of office.The main questionable thing about 911 is the way the building fell. Physics says they fell at nearly freefall speed, even common logic can figure that a pancake theory is irrelevant. The evidence that points to a controlled demolition is staggering.
-explosives were heard in buildings even before the plane crashed.
-molten steel at bottom of the buildings
-rate at which they fell, seriously building 7 wasnt hit, and it fell in exactly the same way. buildings are made to be able to take a lot of resistance.
-employees having lots of evacuation practice procedures, and even interviews of survivors saying they heard lots of weird noises the weeks before it occurred
-a huge terrorist insurance taken out just 2 months before 911
-stock market predictions, where people put money on airlines failing at a much higher rate than usual. It shows someone knew prior to 911.
-the list goes onNow please explain to me scientifically, how it is possible for a 100 story building to fall that fast without using explosives to get rid of the resistance at the bottom and middle of the building.Also please tell me the evidence we have that linked Osama Bin Laden to 911.I've read the 911 commission report and its overall scientific bullshit. Anyone who has even taken a basic college physics class can figure this out. They didn't even mention building 7 until recently.

Sorry, but you're going to have to explain why coverage by foreign media makes it irrelevant that American media isn't covering the story. Is there some limit on the amount of attention that any given story can get and the foreign press used it all up?The fact that you don't see why the lack of American press coverage of conspiracy theories is an anomaly that must be explained suggests that you have nothing of value to add to this conversation. My point in this thread has been that the modus operendi of CTers is to throw dust in the air by tossing out dozens of questions without answering any. Your first post in this thread is doing nothing to disabuse me of my notion.However, in the interest of being open minded, I'll continue. Wonderful. Link me the one that you find most compelling.For purposes of this thread, it's best that it be in English. My foreign language skills are rusty to non-existent. Of course, since there are "countless" examples, I'm sure you can find one. I'm afraid that it's going to be hard for me to take your contributions here seriously when you display such a depth of ignorance. Physics says nothing about how fast the buildings fell. A simple clock tells us how fast they fell."[N]early freefall speed" is so vague as to be meaningless. Exactly how fast did they fall? (Hint: since more than one building fell, there are likely to be different speeds.) What would "freefall" speed be? Actually, "common logic" tells us nothing about how fast the buildings should have fallen. Knowledge of the materials the buildings were made of; the specifications of those materials, including load capacities; weight of the materials, and the building contents; the effect of high temperatures on the building material; these are things we need to know to understand if there is any anomaly in the way the buildings fell. Logic is useless without that information. In fact, in all cases, logic is useless without information to which to apply the rules of logic. Well, let's see. No. Some witnesses reported hearing some explosions. Here's a hint, sometimes things explode without being an explosive. Please explain what you think the significance of "molten steel" is. You have provided no evidence to support your conclusion. Do you have any, or is it nothing more than "I can't understand how it happened that way, so it must not have?" Well, evacuation procedures in a big building. Color me unimpressed. Weird noises? Maybe it was poltergeists brought the towers down. Taken out by whom? What's your evidence? Evidence please?The information that I have is that the put options that were made just before 9/11 were completely normal compared to the usual traffic in such investment devices.Please, before you trot out a laundry list of more things you don't understand but plenty of other people do, answer a few of the questions I've asked. If you don't answer some questions, there's no point in continuing this dialogue. And where you make a factual claim, provide supporting evidence.{AbE} Will do. Just as soon as you provide an evidential basis for concluding that there's some reason to suppose it shouldn't have fallen as fast as it did. Sorry, I don't understand how this question relates to CT madness. Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence to refute what it says. Evidence, not argument from ignorance. Well, obviously they figured everyone would forget about building 7.Edited by subbie, : Missed a bit at the end

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Ok it's good that you're being open minded about this because science promotes and thrives on open mindedness because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist depends upon our willingness to consider new ideas. Scientific discovery often depends on new ways of thinking. Lets start with the basics.In physics the acceleration of a falling object is 9.8 m/s^2. We will use WTC 7 as a example. Wtc 7 is 226 meters high and fell to the ground in about around 7 seconds. Now the calculation if we were to drop a large rock from 226 meters is.d=vt+gt^2/2
d=distance
v=initial velocity
g=gravity
t=time226 meters = (0)(t) + ( (9.8)(T^2) ) / (2)So do this and solve for T, and you get about 6.8 seconds.So basically the building fell at about the same rate as if someone were to drop a rock from the top of the building.Now in order for this to happen there cannot be any resistance within the building at all. If the pancake theory is true, which is the official story, it would have taken much longer for the building to collapse providing that each floor would provide a little resistance to gravity slowing the acceleration.My answer to this and only somewhat reasonable explanation for this is that there had to be explosives, which removed all resistance in the buildings core to enable it to fall at the rate it did.Now my question to you is how can you explain this phenomena.

Apparently you missed the part where I asked for evidence. Try again.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Except that it didn't fall to the ground. It fell into a pile 14 stories high. WTC7 only fell 158 meters.t_(s)= (s/.5g)^1/2 for 159m gives 5.7 seconds. 16% slower then fall time you've alloted.Next?Edited by lyx2no, : Word properly.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Wonderful signature, lyx2no. I must now add it to my collection. But my research shows there's a bit more to it.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You've just shamed me big time. I found that quote on a sticky note left by Uncle lyx2no. You've shamed me because I never even checked on the authenticity of the quote, yet alone if there were more to it. I thank the mythical gods (IOW, all gods) that it wasn't a quote mine. I've got to be more careful..

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.