[e_blazer1]

We've had probably a couple dozen threads on 9-11 on the OT board over the past several months. We've all seen the purported evidence and the rebuttal stuff. So, is anybody changing their opinions based on this conversation, or are we all wasting each other's time?

[Dan]

I don't know, I like how they stay open kind of late. But their slurpies are a bit overrated.

[Schilly]

What's amazing is the thread was started at... 9:11 PM

[hoojacks]

I'd vote, but you didn't include "undecided."

[Yega1979]

I haven't seen any "rebuttals" just ad hominem attacks dismissing the theory as crazy.

No explaination of:

- How and why WTC 7 fell at free fall speed, though it was not hit by a plane

- How both WTC 1 and 2 could have been completely destroyed at nearly free fall speed (I admit, that is a tough once, since the NIST even came out and said they could not explain that)

- Why there were streams of molten steel underneath all three buildings, though every knowledgable person on both sides agrees the fire could not have melted the steel

- Why people within the towers felt explosions BEFORE the planes hit, why explosive smoke was seen coming out of the basement, and why dozens of firemen report hearing bombs going off.

- How a gravity based collapse could cause mega ton chunks of steel to be hurled sidways, hundreds of feet.

[dudleysghost]

I don't think anyone has changed their mind, but it has sometimes been an interesting look into the mindset of a typical conspiracy theorist. It's like going to the zoo. Yega claims not to have heard any reasoned arguments from people refuting the conspiracy theory, which absolutely boggles the mind considering how much evidence we've presented him. His ability to filter out information from his head that doesn't agree with his preconceived notion is a marvel, and there are more like him in the world. Not many, but enough that it bears further study.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Yega1979

I haven't seen any "rebuttals" just ad hominem attacks dismissing the theory as crazy.

ad "hominem" attacks dismissing nubar theories that in a lot of cases defeat laws of logic, physics and reason.

But hey, whatever gets you through the night.

No explaination of:

- How and why WTC 7 fell at free fall speed, though it was not hit by a plane

- How both WTC 1 and 2 could have been completely destroyed at nearly free fall speed (I admit, that is a tough once, since the NIST even came out and said they could not explain that)

- Why there were streams of molten steel underneath all three buildings, though every knowledgable person on both sides agrees the fire could not have melted the steel

- Why people within the towers felt explosions BEFORE the planes hit, why explosive smoke was seen coming out of the basement, and why dozens of firemen report hearing bombs going off.

- How a gravity based collapse could cause mega ton chunks of steel to be hurled sidways, hundreds of feet.

- Why did I respond to this post when clearly it doesn't mitigate things.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Yega1979

I haven't seen any "rebuttals" just ad hominem attacks dismissing the theory as crazy.

No explaination of:

- How and why WTC 7 fell at free fall speed, though it was not hit by a plane

- How both WTC 1 and 2 could have been completely destroyed at nearly free fall speed (I admit, that is a tough once, since the NIST even came out and said they could not explain that)

- Why there were streams of molten steel underneath all three buildings, though every knowledgable person on both sides agrees the fire could not have melted the steel

- Why people within the towers felt explosions BEFORE the planes hit, why explosive smoke was seen coming out of the basement, and why dozens of firemen report hearing bombs going off.

- How a gravity based collapse could cause mega ton chunks of steel to be hurled sidways, hundreds of feet.

No hijacking this thread, Yega. Go start yet another of your own.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by hoojacks

I'd vote, but you didn't include "undecided."

If a moderator would like to add the ubiquitous "undecided" category, I'd be appreciative.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

If a moderator would like to add the ubiquitous "undecided" category, I'd be appreciative.

I accept cash & supermodels.

barfo

[crandc]

Of course not. Sept 11 was a terrorist attack. It may have been prevented if the clues, e.g., the famous "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" memo, the FBI warnings, etc. had been heeded. And certainly it was used as an excuse for a war against a country that had no connection, for fat contracts in the name of "homeland security", and for shredding the Constitution, but that does not change the original issue.

What should have changed my mind? There have been indeed dozens of threads, but all they have been is copy/paste from a single conspiracy theory web site. I have yet to see the sponsor of these threads present ONE SINGLE original idea or cogent argument. Nothing but copy/paste. The sponsor claims that "hundreds of scientists" suppport the conspiracy theorists but cannot come up with ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed article. As others have pointed out, stripping a single sentence out of context to make it "prove" someone's pet conspiracy theory is the tactic used by evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, global warming deniers (which the sponsor of the conspiracy theories admits to being) and others who for whatever reason won't accept well established facts. You can "prove" damn near anything by stripping a single sentence from anyone out of context. And the statements from intelligence, political leaders, etc. are the same thing. Single sentences, stripped of context, copied/pasted from a single conspiracy theory web site.

The sponsor of these threads has zero credibility.

He has claimed to know more (or at least that a conspiracy theory web site knows more) than established experts on engineering, chemistry, demolitions, medicine, history, theology and constitutional law, among other topics. Gaining knowledge is like losing weight: it is hard work and takes time. Sure, there are conspiracy theory web sites and quack diets that claim to be shortcuts, but their followers stay ignorant and fat. If I have to choose between believing scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals and believing copy/paste from conspiracy theory web sites, the scientists have a lot more credibility. And, the scientists, unlike the conspiracy theory web sites, will listen to evidence and acknowledge when they are wrong.

The sponsor of these threads has repeatedly contradicted himself. For example, the NIST report was garbage but the NIST report also supported the conspiracy theories. The attack was an inside job, but homeland security is threatened when the border patrol does not "racially profile" Muslims, who of course are not a race. And that doesn't even include the foolishness of copying/pasting conspiracy theories that were debunked literally DECADES ago (on the evils of water fluoridation, the Kennedy assassination, income tax, etc.) He can't even agree with himself on who planned the attack (Bush? the Catholic Church?) or why (to find gold allegedly hidden under the towers?).

My advice to any advocate of conspiracy theories is this. Enroll in a university course on any of the subjects you claim to be expert in. Engineering, chemistry, demolitions, history, medicine, theology, constitutional law, the choice is yours. After a few months you will have learned enough to realize how little you know. When you actually do know something, submit your ideas to a peer reviewed journal with evidence based on original research (no, copying/pasting from conspiracy theory web sites does not count as research). Then maybe you will be taken seriously. If you prefer conspiracy theories and quack diets, expect to be treated accordingly.

My last word on the subject.

[MARIS61]

The label of "conspiracy theorist" applies equally to either side of this argument, causing the term to lose any meaning in this debate. It's continued use only damages the user's credibility.

Either it's a conspiracy by a bunch of Arabs accomplishing the greatest over-achievement of their sordid careers, a conspiracy by rogue elements directed by or within the highest levels of our government, or a conspiracy of collusion between the 2 which is a choice that probably should be added to this poll.

Unless you don't believe 9-11 happened at all, you're a conspiracy theorist.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by crandc

My last word on the subject.

I certainly hope not.

No matter who you think did it, 9-11 is something we should never stop discussing, lest 50 years from now people start claiming it never happened as they do now with the Holocaust.