Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


10 years of 9/11 conspiracies


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

Poll: 10 years of 9/11 conspiracies (58 member(s) have cast votes)

Who did it?

  1. Bin Laden and the "al qaeda" list (38 votes [65.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.52%

  2. Bin Laden, but Americans knew and let it happen (5 votes [8.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.62%

  3. Americans did it and blamed Bin Laden (8 votes [13.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.79%

  4. Other (7 votes [12.07%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.07%

Where are you from

  1. North America (25 votes [43.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.10%

  2. Outside North America (33 votes [56.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.90%

What do you think of this kind of skeptecism

  1. Plain damned crazy (20 votes [34.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.48%

  2. Offensive! (3 votes [5.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.17%

  3. Meh (15 votes [25.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.86%

  4. A just investigation. (20 votes [34.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.48%

Vote

#1 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28614

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:04 AM

I was reading this Yahoo!7 story today about debunking 9/11 conspiracies, and while the article itself is just fluff journalism, I was interested by the comments section at the bottom.

Yahoo!7 is run with a severe right-wing/conservative bias, and from reading their comments sections over the years, the demographic seems to me to be made up of ordinary, middle-of-the-bell-curve, average red-neck conservative, xenophobic, religious, fearful white Australians. So given this, I was pretty amazed to find 9 out of the first 10 comments dismissing the article and supporting "conspiracy theories"... This leads me to believe that the average conservative Australian citizen doesn't believe in the official 9/11 story, which is fascinating to me as I thought the average Joe would accept what the authorities tell them to believe rather than be branded a "conspiracy nut".

So, I thought I'd conduct an anonymous straw poll here to see how people on a more American-centric forum feel! Sorry about that in advance.

N.B. I take no responsibility for the flaming that's sure to occur at some point. Keep it classy.

Sponsor:

#2 Antheus   Members   -  Reputation: 2397

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:44 AM

Inside job.

As a side note - I ditched my TV for good some 6 months ago. If it weren't for reddit, I wouldn't know it was 9/11.

#3 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6905

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:42 AM

I wouldn't know it was 9/11.



It's not November yet...


^_^

#4 laztrezort   Members   -  Reputation: 955

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:01 AM

I wasn't quite sure how to answer the last question. It makes sense to me that human behavior is disposed (genetically?) to look for causality and motivation in patterns, leading to these types of beliefs. So it is "meh" human nature. But when looking at it from this perspective, it seems "crazy." However, I will allow the possibility that I am also genetically biased here, and this has affected my vote.

Wait - maybe the government has genetically modified me into not believing conspiracy theories! It's probably something they have been putting in the public water supply since the 70's...

#5 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8261

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:31 AM

I'm American, middle-of-the-bell-curve, religious, definitely a redneck (not xenophobic, though) and I am most certainly suspicious of many things surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The subsequent infringements upon our basic civil liberties (the so-called "freedom for safety" tradeoff we've made), and how quickly the attack was used as justification to wage a number of highly profitable and very damaging wars, just don't sit well with me or with many of the people around me. It's taking the easy way out to just write off my particular demographic (I have a 4WD vehicle with a BYU bumper sticker on one side and a "Support the Troops" sticker on the other, and a rifle in the window rack) as a bunch of crazy religo-nuts fanatically in support of whatever ultra-rightwing crud is shoved down the pipe at us, but it's not really the case. There is a pretty healthy population of us who support the idea of civil liberty, compassion in foreign affairs rather than war-mongering, education and respect for science and scientific advancement, critical thinking, etc... But believing in God and wanting to support the troops (and that means, of course, wanting them to remain safe and alive and engaged in boring, every-day, non-war related work, rather than being blown up by some kind of roadside IED) doesn't necessarily mean I am in favor of the TSA violating my wife at some Checkpoint Charlie like they did a few months ago because she refused to expose herself and the baby she was bearing to scanner radiation; or in favor of trading basic civil liberties and freedoms for some kind of illusion of safety; or willing to swallow whatever explanation for the 9/11 tragedy is endorsed by the official line without raising my eyebrows at a few of the inconsistencies and out-and-out contradictions.

I think that any kind of attack that costs innocent lives is worthy of thorough and impartial investigation into cause and responsibility.

#6 Waterlimon   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2435

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:36 AM

It was propably just some random peeps flying to the towers and al queda was the first one to say they did it lol.

Unless theres evidence, no idea xD

o3o


#7 BeanDog   Members   -  Reputation: 1063

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:47 AM

One of my professors at BYU was a figure in the conspiracy movement - Steve Jones. He was a cool if unusual professor, but he was also at the center of the whole fake-cold-fusion nonsense a few decades back. Fool me once...

~BenDilts( void );

Lucidchart: Online Flow Chart Software; Lucidpress: Digital Publishing Software


#8 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6905

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:07 AM

I think that any kind of attack that costs innocent lives is worthy of thorough and impartial investigation into cause and responsibility.


The problem with an attack like this is that finding enough people to be impartial is going to be damned near impossible. At the very least you are going to have to look outside the host country in order to do so and I doubt the US G'ment is going to like the idea of foreign nationals poking around at their data to see what happened.

As I'm here I might as well throw my take on things out there;

Did the g'ment know? Well, I'm going to say the Intelligence community probably had some idea that something was going on, however at this point you drop into the whole 'human element'; just because they knew something might be going down at the time it might not have looked like a 'credible threat'. I dare say if we had access to related intelligence now then it would be easy to join the dots, however as they say hindsight is 20:20, at some point someone decided this threat wasn't likely or at least not likely right then.

End of the day mistakes happen, if the various Intellgence Agencies around the world were perfect then we'd never have any issues; but stuff slips through the cracks. Lets face it if someone had come to you on Sept 10th 2001 and said "tomorrow someone is going to fly two aircraft into the WTC buildings' you wouldn't have considered it likely as it simply wasn't a scale of terrorism most people could concieve.

At this point it is easy to point at the wave of civil liberites which got eroded and the wars which broke out but even that isn't as unlikely as it seems.

The wars first; the Afgan war is somewhat 'legitimate' in that it was sparked by the ruling parties refusal to give up the people considered the mastermind behind the attacks. Granted after that it got a little sidetracked but the primise wasn't a problem. There was probably an element of 'this is handy' about it as it would allow for the removal of an unstable/troublesome element in the region and place someone in position who was more sympathetic to Western causes/positions.

Iraq... well, we all know that was sold on a series of lies and fear mongering statements which anyone with half a brain would question. That one was all about removing Saddam as he was an 'unstable' element in the region. Granted, other countries could be considered 'unstable' but with the last war still reasonably fresh in people's mind it was pretty easy to paint him as a big enemy and given he was a relatively 'soft' target in the region it made sense to go in there. Yes, the oil was probably a factor, however wars are rarely waged for simple reasons like that these days; world geo-poltics is a large and complicated beast.

The speed at which these wars where enacted might seem a bit fast but I think you'd be kidding yourself if you didn't think that the various miltaries around the world DIDN'T have a plan on paper somewhere to invade various countries (including current allies) "just in case". I know I would have and I'm hardly a miltary man ;) Also keep in mind Iraq took a little while to pan out so that's no great shock there; Afgan was quick but given the size and distrubtion of US forces around the world not too quick to have been anything more than a reaction.

The civil liberties issues; well this could be put down to people in power wanted to stay in power and have more control. That might sound a little paranoid but have you ever met someone with large amounts of power who wants to give it up? Much like the miltary invasion plans these plans have probably existed on paper for some years now in the hope that something major would happen soon to let them take advantage of it. Given the aggressive forign policy of the time and the 'human failure' aspect I wouldn't be surprised if they were expecting something soon. Maybe not on this scale but certainly something 'big' as it really was only a matter of time.

"Human nature" seems at the core of the events which have played out over the last 10 years and, even if it wasn't, you aren't going to find a paper trail for something like this anyway. Proof that you allowed 5,000+ people to be killed is unlikely to go down well, even with 'core' supporters (I dare say some people would shrug and say it was worth it however) and so leaving any sort of proof is unlikely anyway.

Of course, what should have happened is that people should have reacted to this reduction in liberties and said "this won't stand" and found a way to protest and stop it happening. However most people are living lives where they don't/won't think about things like this or simply don't care because it doesn't affect them right now.

In the face of a large attack and mass apathy you can get away with many things it seems...

#9 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28614

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:15 AM

It was propably just some random peeps flying to the towers and al queda was the first one to say they did it lol.

Even though I started the tread, I didn't really want to get involved in a discussion, but I've got to point out that "al qaeda" didn't claim responsibility, they actually denied it at first... There is a transcript that is used as "proof" that Bin Laden is responsible, but he doesn't actually claim responsibility in it, he only implies that he thought about attacking the WTC (prior to the 1993 bombing).

I'm going to say the Intelligence community probably had some idea that something was going on, however ... Lets face it if someone had come to you on Sept 10th 2001 and said "tomorrow someone is going to fly two aircraft into the WTC buildings' you wouldn't have considered it likely as it simply wasn't a scale of terrorism most people could concieve.

The CIA did have the foresight to, 6 months earlier, write a TV episode about US false-flag 'terrorists' flying aircraft into the WTC buildings in order to justify foreign wars though ;-P *hums x-files theme*

#10 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:28 AM

I'm from the UK, a skeptic and rational bloke, and I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories. Except of course the official one: that Al-Qaeda evil extremist nutjobs hijacked 4 airplanes and buried them into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania thanks to the heroic actions of the passengers. The resulting fires from the twin towers are what brought them down.

I don't want to go into too much detail on the matter but... put it this way; In 10 years of personal experience, the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.

#11 dpadam450   Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:59 AM

the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.


Yea nobody cares about those people, they usually are more worried about keeping their mohawks gelled up with hot topic products. You have to love the other side though. "Oh yea ahahah ok steel doesn't melt at that temp.......your an idiot." People will completely disregard science at all and there are more than a handful of scientific facts that don't add up.


No matter what side you are on, the fact that there is no explanation for this, makes no sense:
A building fell that day that was never mentioned and never hit by a plane. I think that is the biggest questions: why would you only report half of the casualties and ships sunk at pearl harbor? Well you don't. Why would you not report 1/3 of the buildings that fell? And why hijack and airplane if you could do it so easily from the ground. I mean the planes took an hour to collapse a building, the other building fell immediately. Thats just my terrorist logic.

#12 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:11 AM

the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.


Yea nobody cares about those people, they usually are more worried about keeping their mohawks gelled up with hot topic products. You have to love the other side though. "Oh yea ahahah ok steel doesn't melt at that temp.......your an idiot." People will completely disregard science at all and there are more than a handful of scientific facts that don't add up.

No matter what side you are on, the fact that there is no explanation for this, makes no sense:
A building fell that day that was never mentioned and never hit by a plane. I think that is the biggest questions: why would you only report half of the casualties and ships sunk at pearl harbor? Well you don't. Why would you not report 1/3 of the buildings that fell? And why hijack and airplane if you could do it so easily from the ground. I mean the planes took an hour to collapse a building, the other building fell immediately. Thats just my terrorist logic.



WTC7, right?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

It wasn't the planes that brought down any of the buildings, the structures were designed to withstand those impacts and they duly did so. The problem was the fire, and this was true of WTC7 as well. I recommend this website, it is well structured and generally backs up the points it makes with evidence from several sources.





#13 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:34 AM

WTC7, right?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

It wasn't the planes that brought down any of the buildings, the structures were designed to withstand those impacts and they duly did so. The problem was the fire, and this was true of WTC7 as well. I recommend this website, it is well structured and generally backs up the points it makes with evidence from several sources.


Not to mention the fact that 2 buildings the size of the towers falling are pretty significant seismic events right next door.

edit: I think the largest argument against it being an inside job is that there were plenty of isolated targets that would be much better and far less risky to the entire country if it were an inside job. Taking out 2 huge buildings with long duration fires in the core of your nation's financial center is absolutely insane when you could do the same thing to any sports stadium, or any city that doesn't contain the majority of american wealth and get the same pro-war attitude.

#14 kunos   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2203

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:39 AM

I don't want to go into too much detail on the matter but... put it this way; In 10 years of personal experience, the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.


they are also the same that created the millenium bug, that think planes are releasing chemical gas to make us happy and stupid (maybe stupid I am, but WTF why I am not happy??? Posted Image), that you can wire in a couple of pots to attract clouds and make it rain, and that next year will try to convince us the world is actually going to end.

I would also like to hear how these ppl explain the attacks in London and Madrid.. what's was that? Bush just told the guys in London: look, I tell you how this is done, listen to me...
Stefano Casillo
Lead Programmer
TWITTER: @KunosStefano
AssettoCorsa - netKar PRO - Kunos Simulazioni

#15 ChurchSkiz   Members   -  Reputation: 439

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:11 PM

It was propably just some random peeps flying to the towers and al queda was the first one to say they did it lol.

Unless theres evidence, no idea xD


That would be a great way to ignore the evidence of the cockpit recordings and the identities of the 10 people known to hijack the plane who took pilot lessons and had connections to Al Qaeda.

It's pretty hard to deny that Al Qaeda did it, if you want to say the government knew about it, ok. But then you'd have to believe that it could be kept a secret.

What I struggle with is that people say things like "The president <any president> is an idiot!" and then in the next breath talk about these vast, overreaching conspiracies that the government plots.

This is the same government that lets one angsty kid download hundreds of GB's of information onto a flash drive and disseminate it to the entire world. The same people that can't keep a lid on any important secret without a whistle blower or leaker. Somehow these same people were able to withhold some mass conspiracy from a single whistleblower? Not to mention that it assumes all the people that would be working together are all on the same team. I mean relations between the FBI, CIA, and White House are not what I would call "chummy."

#16 kauna   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2286

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:21 PM

Another conspiracy theory.


#17 dpadam450   Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:50 PM

The idea that everything happened all perfect is a theory itself.

I looked at the debunking link and unless I did not read far enough, their claim is that fire weakened the building and apparently every piece of steel collapsed at once bringing it straight down.
How all 3 buildings should have collapsed. ........randomly buckling.


#18 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:00 PM

The idea that everything happened all perfect is a theory itself.

I looked at the debunking link and unless I did not read far enough, their claim is that fire weakened the building and apparently every piece of steel collapsed at once bringing it straight down.
How all 3 buildings should have collapsed. ........randomly buckling.


You did not read far enough.

The page I sent you to clearly shows how the weakened side of the building (due to having a massive hole gouged in it through flying debris) caused that side to collapse first. The loss of structural integrity at that moment then caused the rest of the building to go. The building then pancakes onto itself, as the weight of each floor becomes too much for the one underneath it, and the process accelerates until the entire building is down.

As for the video you posted...that is not at all how the buildings should have come down. The steel support structures throughout the building were melting in a similar place. It only takes one to fail, and in a fraction of a second all of the weight that the failed support was holding is transferred onto the other supports. Which, in turn, causes them to fail, and all the floors above the breaking point to come like removing the final middle block from a game of Jenga - vertically. Had the failure been lower down and only on one side then the collapse would have been as you linked, but because the jet fuel caused the fire to rage all around the building and weaken all the steel supports, once one went the others put up no resistance.

#19 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1738

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM

1. Supports do not need to 'melt' to fail. Even heated to a point below 'glowing red' will reduce the strength of a steel column by a huge margin. Barely glowing red is already a fraction of its strength. Hint: Go look at a blacksmith working, and how little effort they need to hammer iron and move it around/bend it. No where near 'melting'.

2. The fire raged throughout the structure on multiple floors, burning not only jet fuel, but the contents of the offices. This plays into point 1, and fairly evenly heated columns near the center of the building.

3. The exterior of the building was structural cladding. It was not there simply for looks and to keep the weather out, but actually part of how the building was designed to stand up. These supports would have been among the coolest, and not weakened as much, meaning there was little to no bias as to which direction the tower would fall.

4. Goes back to 3, the exterior of the building was structural cladding, and would hold the building together. The building began to collapse inward, the center supports failing, the floors above them losing support thereby falling down and dragging the outer walls with them.

5. The upper portion of the tower impacted the lower tower. Basically it was dropped several stories onto the rest of the tower when the supports failed and gravity took over. The biggest part of this that people seem to ignore is the fact that this force didn't just impact the floor directly below the fire and the supports there, but also all the other supports in the building. Columns would have begun failing all over the building the moment the 'top' of the tower collapsed into the rest of it. The tower most likely collapsed in multiple locations at a time, not simply one floor after the other failing like it was an elevator going down.



Basically the design of the building boils down to falling straight down as the only real way it is going to go. The exterior would hold for a short time as the interior sections fell, and then get pulled inward and down after the floor sections it was attached too. It wasn't going to fall to either side because the centers failed first, dropped down, and began dragging everything after it. The exterior walls would have guided the falling weight toward the center, and held in place until their own floors pulled them inward, and the weight pressing above them bent/broke each section.

Edit: Plus, if it had been taken down by demolition charges as some people claim, then we would have seen medium to high velocity debris and fragmentation projecting through the dust cloud at the initial stages of the explosion. In demolition this is generally either ignored and allowed to project if the structure is in an isolated area, or attempts are made to contain it by use of mesh/fragmentation wrap. And I'm sure people would have noticed large amounts of high strength mesh and chain-link fence being put up all over the building.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#20 dpadam450   Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:14 PM

Well I dont think anyone is going to be swayed to think differently from what they already know. Everything surrounding 9/11 is a joke though. We went to war with the wrong people, we lied about wmds which all this middle east conquering has killed way way more people than 9/11. The original heroes of 9/11 were not even allowed to be present at the ceremony yesterday. In order to get benefits for workers on that day, you had to prove this and that to make sure you weren't a terrorist..............joke.

The building then pancakes onto itself, as the weight of each floor becomes too much for the one underneath it, and the process accelerates until the entire building is down.


Well there are apparently engineers that believe differently. I don't know any and who knows they could be making that up. Also, people rig buildings to fall straight down when they blow them up to demolish them, and even they they make mistakes. Your telling me that these 3 buildings just worked? No 3 day demolition setup with double checks to make sure the buildings will collapse straight? Because apparently it takes thought and people get paid salaries to drop buildings that perfectly.

I don't care who did it and it always seems strange to believe it was an inside job, I have my doubts, but the official printed story is bogus. Someone somewhere is lying. Is our intelligence and CIA that bad at doing their jobs? I mean I laughed watching Bachmann debate saying that the patriot act and intelligence is proven to work because we got Bin Laden.............10 years later.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS