Printable View
Seriously, Sjakhata, what if, hypothetically of course, it was determined that in fact, it was a master plot, ordered by Göran Persson , carried out by SÄPO, motivated by an overwhelming desire to acquire yet even more Turkisk peppar? What if, hypothetically, it turned out to be the work of Dr. Doom, and the Fantastic Four just didn't get there in time? Before we can offer serious speculation, we need credible scenarios posed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
mabye they are correct about the fire and fuel and collapsing but pray tell how will they explain the insentive to attack the pentagon and possibly another site in DC. does there conspiracy theory extend to attacks on other sites that were not so catostrophic, the pentagon was struck and a plane went down in pennsylvania, where is the conspiracy over those, did anyone see unexploded bombs being carted out of the washington monument later that day?
There's no shortage of equally ludicrous conspiracy theories for the Pentagon too- rest assured. Or haven't you heard? It was really a missile! :dizzy2: :wall:
None come to mind over the flight that went down in PA- but Im sure they're out there.
They don't say that "no plane" hit the Pentagon but that it was smaller vessel like an "A-3 Sky Warrior". So there's no contradiction of claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Also the 3 peer reviewed papers (and everything else I've seen) on the front page are all referenced. The evidence seems as strong as that of the official reports. :wink: And the "Thierry Meyssan stuff", as you call it, is actually not brought up again but treated differently. Iirc Meyssan's conclusion was that a rocket propelled grenade/whatever was fired. They do agree with him though that it can't have been a 747.
I don't know if you have read this article:
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
I quote it for our convenience. I think it's a very interesting point.
BTW, to all those that frequently refer to tinfoil hats: a study at Stanford (Iirc) has lately found out that if there was such a thing as CIA mindreading then wearing a tinfoil hat would almost certainly amplify the ability to read ones mind. Ironic, isn't it? :laugh4:Quote:
1. "Conspiracy Theories"
We need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys knock off a 7/11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, and now Halliburton as it exploits the opportunities for amassing profits in Iraq. Insider trading is a simple example, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as "conspiracies".1 The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving JFK and 9/11.
One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory", too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?
There is a certain ingenuity in combining "conspiracy" with "theory", because the word "theory" can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, conjecture, or guess to denigrate one account or another for political or ideological reasons without acknowledging that "theory" can also be used in the stronger sense of an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis. Consider Newton's theory of gravitation or Einstein's theory of relativity as instances. The psychological ploy is to speak as though all "theories" were guesses, none of which ought to be taken seriously. Various different cases, however, can present very different problems. Evidence can be scarce, for example, or alternatives might be difficult to imagine.
Moreover, there are several reasons why different persons might arrive at very different conclusions in a given case. These include that they are not considering the same set of alternative explanations or that they are not employing the same rules of reasoning. The objectivity of science derives, not from transcending our human frailties, but from its inter-subjectivity.2 Different scientists confronting the same alternatives, the same evidence, and the same rules of reasoning should arrive at all and only the same conclusions about which hypotheses are acceptable, which are rejectable, and which should be held in suspense. And, in the search for truth, scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence, a condition called the requirement of total evidence, and is otherwise fallacious.3
I think I once heard about a "theory" claiming that flight 93 has been shot down by the military (apparently the same military, that - according to other conspiracy theories - was prevented from shooting down the NY planes ... :juggle2: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Of course! It all makes sense now! The Air Force shot down flight 93 in case it ever came to light that they didn't shoot down the 2 New York planes when they could have. The perfect cover! By the way, all reports to the contrary, Francisco Franco is alive and well in a convalescent home in Michigan, just waiting for his 'next big opportunity'. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Peer-reviewed my foot. I remember reading the first one by Steven Jones back in 2005. It merely states that the buildings had prepositioned charges. It does not state that the U.S. government positioned them. The second is not peer-reviewed at all; it is just a lecture and a very bad one. The third is only a chapter for an upcoming book on a supposed 9/11 conspiracy, and it is not peer-reviewed either. It has no substance, it quotes Meyssan and Jones and speculates about what might have hit the Pentagon: a small plane, a fighter jet, a cruise missile, an unmanned aeroplane, anything really. As evidence for the wild claims made on the site this is pure cr@p.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Sorry, but that is essentially Meyssan's contention. And they literally quote Meyssan's stuff over at http://www.asile.org.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Most of their claims are nothing more than thinly veiled speculation, most of their sources contradict each other. Just look closely and you will see what I mean. Here is an example of how it 'works'.
They posit the following:The footnote supposed to substantiate this claim refers to a passage in an article on NewScience.com. Here it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scholars for 9/11 Truth
So what Taylor was saying to NewScience.com was that it looked like a classic demolition because the planes replaced the usual explosives higher up in the building. In essence, Taylor says the additional explosive devices that the 'Scholars' speculate about were not necessary at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by NewScience.com
Their site is replete with such contradictions.
This theory is nothing new (well at least to me) I've heard of it in other sources, not in so much detail, but still.
This is interesting. A while ago I published here a little article about an american photographer (I don't remember his name). He was the only one who was allowed to enter ground zero before the incident (he also worked regularilly on the nuclear reserves). The interesting part is this: he was persecuted for the murder of his wife, the case was desisted. Reopening it will imply ne bis in idem (judging over the same case twice). Well after the desistence he took a flight to here (Argentina). The authorities took him in custody because of other charges. Inmediatly the authorities of USA called and asked for his personal belongings, specially his camera. The charges were droped (the charges from our part of course). After a while he begun to complain about other photographers chasing them (he and his new wife), actually showing some of this photographies. The authorities denied the extradiction. And that was the end of the story for now. Anyway just an observation that might add more to this theory.Quote:
Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.
Surely the demolition explosives would have to be placed at the point of impact or most of the building would have to be wired and then only the ones in the zone of the impact detonated?
Surely someone would notice this... have you seen how long it takes to wire a skyscaper for demolitions, the amount of wiring involved and how precise they have to be.
====
Paper starts to ignites at a certain temperature... this is not the temperature that it then creates... it adds to that ignition temperature.
So paper ignites at 351, but the new temperature will be 351 + the amount of energy released in the exothermic reaction. Shredded paper will produce more heat quickly then a wound up newspaper.
In addition the configuration of the flame (where the combustabiles are located and the oxygen supply) and where you place an object in the flame will change how much temperature there is on the object. With bunsen burners you will get a transparent zone in the flame and a blue outer flame... or with a different oxygen setting a yellow flame.
With the planes crashing at high velocity it would have created an aerosol which burns very quickly and with massive heat... the shredded paper scenario.
====
Steel melts at at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
Stainless Steels are around 1420 to 1440 degrees C.
Iron melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F).
Steel is an alloy of Iron and other elements. Hence different steels will have different melting points as they are combined differently. However more often then not Steel will melt at a lower temperature then Iron.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
====
Aviation fuel can burn at up to 2600K (2300 Celsius). Plane turbines are limited to about 1900 K and to stop massive amounts of NOx in the atmosphere the upper limit is about 2100K.
In other words aviation fuel can burn about 800 degrees above the melting point of steel.
====
In conclusion these academics facts are incorrect. Which in turn means that their theories based on these facts are also incorrect.
Not if it was closed to public visit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This is very true. I questioned it myself when I read the excerpt.Quote:
With the planes crashing at high velocity it would have created an aerosol which burns very quickly and with massive heat... the shredded paper scenario.
Sorry, the K is for Kelvin? Then 2600K is beneath 2300 Celsius and beneath 2500 Farenheith.Quote:
Aviation fuel [/URL]can burn at up to 2600K (2300 Celsius). Plane turbines are limited to about 1900 K and to stop massive amounts of NOx in the atmosphere the upper limit is about 2100K.
K is for Kelvin... C for Celsius, F for Fahrenheit.
2600K = 2300 C = 4200 F.
Link to a temperature calculator
Kelvin starts 0 at -273 C.
The core was weakened and buckled. Then floors fell and a chain reaction started. You can't efficiently build building able to stop that.
I still have not seen an answer as to why NORAD sat on its hands, and why jets were not scrambled. That is the question that needs answering.
Wonders why we Swedes get pointed out in an answer to a Danish member. :juggle2: Kudos on the correct use of åäö though (it is taken from somewere else, right?) :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Anyway, if it is some grand conspiracy theory then it has to be quite big as it seems that no American organisation can keep thier mouths shut for this long. It always comes out, eventually.
And as Simon was into, it's a possibillity that they really can't accept that a bunch of clumpsy suecidal maniacs is avalable to do that kind of damage.
No, it has to be something larger, they say.
But you can always wonder why so few heads flew, when it was the (second?) biggest intelligence failure in US history and that because of sheer incompetence :inquisitive:
Pape: I love you.:knuddel:
Is it a platonic love or is it lust for his flesh?
I don't know, science talk makes me all tingly.
:2thumbsup:
Edit: just to clarify, platonic, I was overjoyed to hear about the properties of vanilla and chocolate ice cream. God knows if it's true but I liked it.
That is their main problem. A conspiracy of a few dozen fanatics with box cutters is believable, particularly because their identities and motivations are known, their whereabouts and actions have been reconstructed. An anonimous conspiracy involving a dozen U.S. state agencies, the Air Force, the CIA, various fire departments etcetera etcetera is just not credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Amazing, this collective harakiri of 50 rogue samurai.
I stopped reading the article when it asked if the President knew if the attacks were coming. We also "knew" about the Japanese attack on what was to be Pearl Harbor. I consider most (not all people) academics to be, academic:
ac•a•dem•ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-dmk)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning.
1.Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational.
2.Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
3.Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic.
4.Based on formal education.
5.Formalistic or conventional.
6.Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See Synonyms at theoretical.
7.Having no practical purpose or use.
~;)
If they want something to muse about I think this rather profound event is an excellent choice, even if I disagree with their ‘findings’.
There's another fundamental flaw with conspiracy theories that occurred to me way back in my X-Files days. They don't pass muster when it comes to Occum's Razor. If the government is capable of pulling off such an elaborate hoax and has that much power to maintain the illusion, why on earth wouldn't they just quit playing charades and do whatever it is that is the supposed goal of the charade in the first place???
I forget the name, but there was a series of cartoons in newspapers from the 40's through the 60's, they were called ____ machines, where all sorts of contraptions were excessively and needlessly complex and elaborate when in reality, no benefit was realized (think a flyswatter with 3 motors and over 1000 moving parts for example). Whenever I hear of one of these conspiracy theories, that's always what comes to mind.
My favorite reply to elaborate government conspiracies: Have you ever met anyone who works for the government? If we recruit people like Valerie Plane (sp?) from cocktail parties to be spies what does that say about the rest of us?
Good point - if they managed to stage 9/11 they sure did a sloppy job regarding the Iraq-AQ or the Iraq-WMD issue in comparison... (not wanting to start a discussion about these to issues, but it appears that whatever organisation is supposed to have staged 9/11 had an intern working on the Iraq-cases)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Absolutely. Our government can't even deliver the mail in a repeatably reliable fashion, yet somehow they managed to pull this off without leaving any tangible proof? And managed to keep it this secret? Hell's bells, in certain aspects, my estimation of my government might actually go up if it could be proven that they were the ones that pulled it off. I'd have to stop with all the incompetency cracks, at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Bush used his new brainwashing machine(powered by the souls of small black children, and desgined by aliens) to remove the evidence and eliminate any chance of some one screwing up.
You can't prove that he didn't, and I'm certain that ther are certain websites out there that will back up what I said.
Maybe I'm wrong, but what if I'm right? we can't take any chances, therefore, we should lynch him as soon as we can.
You're not thinking big enough. :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
The obvious answer is that it isn't the US goverment, but someone manipulating the US goverment. :grin2:
Thus phoney reasons for attacking Iraq can be exactly according to plan. :idea2:
Some Popcorns and a large coke would be great.
If you love this then you will love the fact that custard can blow up entire factories just leaving the scorched foundations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
Exploding custard.
*faints*
Interesting handy feature. And humilliating failure from my part too.:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well that answers one question. But still there's other questions and other hipotesys that must be answered (refering to the inicial post). Just because some part is refuted it doesn't mean that the entire theory is unfounded.
Well it disproves their idea that plane fuel cannot melt steel.
Also the collapse of the building was not 6.6 seconds. It stood for quite a while and once it went past a critical point it then collapsed. The pressure of the above floors pressed down on the structure and much like a tree that has been chopped into it collapsed... once it started falling it would have been self energising.
The best point I've seen is the WTC 7 collapse. The video shows it is totally vertical. Also, it was mentioned that the calculated free fall from that building is 6.0 seconds but the building itself fell in 6.6 seconds (have to recheck that).
However, a conspiracy this big and deep would require too many people's cooperation as well as be dependent on the the success of the hijackers.
Meaning in an event of failure (say, only one plane hit), they have to clean up all the elaborate explosives set up (supposedly) in the other buildings.