Your Most Annoying Conspiracy Theories?

[Brian Haughton]

That a 'lone nut' named Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

 

[Koji K.]

Don't know if this has already been mentioned, but that one about how income tax is unconstitutional.

 

[cottonzway]

Don't know if this has already been mentioned, but that one about how income tax is unconstitutional.

I suggest people watch Aaron Russo's documentay, "American: Freedom to Fascism"

 

[Koji K.]

I suggest people watch Aaron Russo's documentay, "American: Freedom to Fascism"

Is it free somewhere?

 

[The Hawk]

The Adamic Divide: The ultimate of conspiracies:

1. That man was meant to have dominion over the Earth.
(False)

2. That mankind is innately flawed.
(False, the culture of Adam is flawed.)

"Any species may go out of existence by failing, but it certainly didn't come into existence by failing. No species comes into existence by failing."-Daniel Quinn

The tribe of Adam fell from grace and has spread itself to every corner of the world. I believe (based on Vatican suppressed writings and the work of Daniel Quinn) In ancient times Adam's tale was first told by tribes who were integrated by force. Adam's tribe was given weapons of war and totalitarian agriculture by the serpent gods (aliens). They tell of Adam's anomalous belief that he was above the animals. The story of Genesis was not about the fall of man or even the "creation". It was a metaphorical tale about the fall of a single tribe from the sustainable path. This tribe is still here ingrained into our growing world culture for the past 10,000 years. We are still of the same overarching world culture, we who stomp out and integrate the Native Americans and every native culture that lives in natural order because the culture of Adam says: This was the way man was meant to live. Man was meant to have dominion. Man is innately flawed, man is doomed. Well man might be doomed because the culture of Adam has taken over like a dangerous species introduced outside it's ecosystem. Sooner or later natural selection will force us to live sustainable rather we like it or not and at what cost?

"The 'story' we're enacting in our culture is this: The world was made for Man to conquer and rule, and Man was made to conquer and rule it; and under Man's rule, the world might have become a paradise except for the fact that he's fundamentally and irremediably flawed."

"There is no one right way for people to live."

"Diversity, not uniformity, is what works."

-Daniel Quinn

Search your being; if you look hard enough you will find a core of truth to what I say, so profound it will break your entire world view. Go read some of Daniel Quinn's books.

 

[CapnG]

Is it free somewhere?

 

[Astroboy]

9/11 Lunacy!

So, you 9/11 conspiracy believers think this is likely?

Somebody rigged explosives throughout BOTH World Trade Towers including miles and miles of detonation cord and explosives without anyone in either building noticing? Precise detonation requires many weeks if not months of preparation. This includes removing sheetrock and any obstructions so that shaped charges can go directly onto steel or concrete columns. These columns as well as ancillary walls must be precut to ensure that they fall in a controlled fashion. You're saying that this enormous undertaking for a mammoth structure was done while thousands of workers of both buildings never noticed or reported this?

The World Trade Center buildings are not constructed like most buildings. The exterior of the building are also load bearing walls unlike most modern steel and glass structures. This exterior shell was damaged by the impact of the planes effectively cutting a large gash in both buildings thereby weakened the structural integrity. To rig explosives to cut the exterior shell of the building you would have seen the wiring and explosives on the OUTSIDE of the building. Most people don't know this. BTW, I was a trained Architect for many years. No explosives, no detonation cords, no visible evidence of preparation, Nothing.

The collision of the planes with fully loaded fuel tanks caused the eventual collapse of both buildings. The impact force damaged not only the exterior load bearing walls but also the interior supports. This, at the very minimum, sheared away the foam insulation that protects steel columns from fire. If you've ever seen foam insulation sprayed on steel members in your office building garage you know you can easily scrape it off with a pair of keys. Now imagine a jet shrapnel hitting it at several hundred miles per hour.

Steel does not need to burn for a building to fail. The foam insulation is designed to retard flames and give enough time for people to escape buildings not to prevent failure. Of course the foam is not designed to withstand jet fuel which burns much hotter. Arson fires which use jet fuel as an incindiary are sometimes encountered by firefighters who don't bother to put out the fire because there is almost no way to put out the high temperature fire with water. It would only take an hour for a jet fuel fire to weaken steel enough to collapse a building. Steel only needs to lose 50% of its strength for the weight of the building to cause failure. It does not need to burn for the building to come down.

So, you're also telling me that it is likely that after a long preparation of explosives you then have two planes hitting at exactly the same position that you've set your explosives? That kind of precision flying is amazing even for the Blue Angels given you are flying a cumbersome passenger jet flown by pilots who didn't even learn how to land or take off. On top of all this you expect me to believe that the collision of the planes didn't fuck up all that explosives wiring that you've spend months preparing. You are smoking some serious crack.

Just because someone hears an explosion doesn't mean it's a bomb or even an explosion. Many things can sound like an explosion such as concrete column failure, post tensioned cable failure, fuel tanks, or falling of any large object. When a big truck rolls by your residence it may feel like an earthquake but it's not a earthquake.

Just because it looks like a controlled demolition doesn't mean it is one. People who see the video of the WTC collapse think it it shows an controlled demolition obviously have not seen enough of them or are poor observers. In a controlled demolition the charges are exploded in precise sequence down to the millisecond. It does not explode all at once. You'll hear a very quick succession of explosions and the sequence will depend on how you want the building to collapse. For an internal collapse the interior columns will be exploded first then the exterior. In the WTC collapse you don't see any of this quick sequence of explosions. Listen to the collapse you don't hear a series of hundreds of charges going off do you? You only see total simultaneous failure. Anything resembling explosions is simply the dust caused by the sheetrock of interior walls.

I could go on and on but 9/11 conspiracy nuts will not listen to logic. They've let their hatred of Bush cloud their reasoning ability. They can't separate their politics from the evidence. You are just as guilty to coming to the wrong conclusion because of your political biases as the Bush Administration was regarding Iraq.

I don't like Bush anymore than anyone one else but that doesn't prevent me from thinking straight.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Somebody rigged explosives throughout BOTH World Trade Towers including miles and miles of detonation cord and explosives without anyone in either building noticing?

Astro, there are eyewitnesses to strange activity in the buildings prior to 9/11. I'm sure someone here can post some references for you, but at risk of turning the thread into another 9/11 debate.

9/11 is inconclusive to me btw. I fit in neither category of believers or disbelievers. I'm still waiting and exploring it without having a made up mind set. Just wanted to point that out so people don't read in to the above comments as if I'm a troofer.

As for most annoying, there's no way I can answer that since there are simply too many nutty conspiracies out there. It's like asking me what is my fav food. I don't have 1 fav food. I like many the same.

 

[BrandonD]

I don't like Bush anymore than anyone one else but that doesn't prevent me from thinking straight.

Every single argument you make (which are only excuseable if you happen to be younger than 16) is addressed on any number of 9/11 truth sites.

Take the trouble to read the info before you make up your mind. Only then can you honestly say that you're "thinking straight".

 

[Astroboy]

As a matter of fact I have read the claims on the websites by so called "experts" such as Dave Heller. I see bogus science by unaccredited professionals who have no practical working experience in the construction industry. Just because you have a degree in physics and architecture doesn't mean you know squat about the real world. I also have an architectural degree but I did practice for many years and have been to many construction sites.

It's funny that so much weight is put on just a few sources, who's credentials are questionable, but no one listens to the hundreds of real professionals and eye witnesses who debunk these claims.

Some of the theories and conclusions are laughable and fall in the same league as Creationism which is another bogus theory based on bogus science powered by a political agenda.

I fail to see any argument that counters the things I've said. The so called suspicious activity claim is ridiculous since it takes weeks if not months of prep work to do a demolition, all of which can be negated with just one or more errors in wiring never mind a jet impact. If this one argument cannot be dismissed then the rest of your theories fall apart.

Read: WTC Power Down

06-09-11

Unlike some people, I have listened to both sides of the argument.

If you strip away your political biases maybe you can look at things a little more clearly.

Extremists are all alike. They tend to see things as they wish regardless of the facts. It justifies the Iraq War. It justifies Holocaust deniers. And, it justifies lies about 9/11.

 

[cottonzway]

9/11 Lunacy!

So, you 9/11 conspiracy believers think this is likely?

Somebody rigged explosives throughout BOTH World Trade Towers including miles and miles of detonation cord and explosives without anyone in either building noticing? Precise detonation requires many weeks if not months of preparation. This includes removing sheetrock and any obstructions so that shaped charges can go directly onto steel or concrete columns. These columns as well as ancillary walls must be precut to ensure that they fall in a controlled fashion. You're saying that this enormous undertaking for a mammoth structure was done while thousands of workers of both buildings never noticed or reported this?

The World Trade Center buildings are not constructed like most buildings. The exterior of the building are also load bearing walls unlike most modern steel and glass structures. This exterior shell was damaged by the impact of the planes effectively cutting a large gash in both buildings thereby weakened the structural integrity. To rig explosives to cut the exterior shell of the building you would have seen the wiring and explosives on the OUTSIDE of the building. Most people don't know this. BTW, I was a trained Architect for many years. No explosives, no detonation cords, no visible evidence of preparation, Nothing.

The collision of the planes with fully loaded fuel tanks caused the eventual collapse of both buildings. The impact force damaged not only the exterior load bearing walls but also the interior supports. This, at the very minimum, sheared away the foam insulation that protects steel columns from fire. If you've ever seen foam insulation sprayed on steel members in your office building garage you know you can easily scrape it off with a pair of keys. Now imagine a jet shrapnel hitting it at several hundred miles per hour.

Steel does not need to burn for a building to fail. The foam insulation is designed to retard flames and give enough time for people to escape buildings not to prevent failure. Of course the foam is not designed to withstand jet fuel which burns much hotter. Arson fires which use jet fuel as an incindiary are sometimes encountered by firefighters who don't bother to put out the fire because there is almost no way to put out the high temperature fire with water. It would only take an hour for a jet fuel fire to weaken steel enough to collapse a building. Steel only needs to lose 50% of its strength for the weight of the building to cause failure. It does not need to burn for the building to come down.

So, you're also telling me that it is likely that after a long preparation of explosives you then have two planes hitting at exactly the same position that you've set your explosives? That kind of precision flying is amazing even for the Blue Angels given you are flying a cumbersome passenger jet flown by pilots who didn't even learn how to land or take off. On top of all this you expect me to believe that the collision of the planes didn't fuck up all that explosives wiring that you've spend months preparing. You are smoking some serious crack.

Just because someone hears an explosion doesn't mean it's a bomb or even an explosion. Many things can sound like an explosion such as concrete column failure, post tensioned cable failure, fuel tanks, or falling of any large object. When a big truck rolls by your residence it may feel like an earthquake but it's not a earthquake.

Just because it looks like a controlled demolition doesn't mean it is one. People who see the video of the WTC collapse think it it shows an controlled demolition obviously have not seen enough of them or are poor observers. In a controlled demolition the charges are exploded in precise sequence down to the millisecond. It does not explode all at once. You'll hear a very quick succession of explosions and the sequence will depend on how you want the building to collapse. For an internal collapse the interior columns will be exploded first then the exterior. In the WTC collapse you don't see any of this quick sequence of explosions. Listen to the collapse you don't hear a series of hundreds of charges going off do you? You only see total simultaneous failure. Anything resembling explosions is simply the dust caused by the sheetrock of interior walls.

I could go on and on but 9/11 conspiracy nuts will not listen to logic. They've let their hatred of Bush cloud their reasoning ability. They can't separate their politics from the evidence. You are just as guilty to coming to the wrong conclusion because of your political biases as the Bush Administration was regarding Iraq.

I don't like Bush anymore than anyone one else but that doesn't prevent me from thinking straight.

First of all I find your attitude of insulting people like you do a bit funny seeing as you are doing so on a message forums dedicated to the paranormal. Its funny hearing someone who obviously came to this site because they have some interest in what society considers “fringe” to the masses. So it is less/more “crazy” to consider that aliens from other planets/dimensions are visiting earth then compromised human beings doing something sinister? Pretty much the gist is don’t throw stones while living in a glass house.

I’m not going to go and “explain” all of what you said because it is pointless. It is not even the points that people should have been focusing on in the first place. I will say this though. Your claims about “how could they get charges in there?” can be explained in concept because there was massive amounts of security shut downs and guys working on various projects in the days prior to 9/11. Security cameras were down when this “group” was working on whatever they were doing and bomb sniffing dogs were not in the building during those days as well. Also you can’t explain the WTC 7 building at all and neither can I. More importantly neither can NIST or anyone in the filed of archutechure. If you want an excellent source for information about this I suggest going to the site below. I am not an expert in the various fields that make up building construction and destruction, but there people are professionals in those areas. They make valid points based off knowledge rather then speculation.

World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? - Home

There is so much wrong and misleading info about there about 9/11 in general. The majority of that comes from inside the “movement” in the first place. It’s run like a cult now with people spouting off slogans like “9/11 was an inside job!” like some damn anti-war protester, handing out flawed DVDs that have missed the point while having a lot of bad info in them, and allowing the deep fringe elements to creep inside by most likely CENTCOM to add garbage like space beams, no planes hit the buildings, the “Jews” did it, or countless other disinformation campaigns. If you think those people are “nutjobs” I agree.

What I disagree with is the entire notion that anyone who questions the 9/11 events is that way. Look, if people would simply READ instead of putting out mindless slogans the ideas would make more sense. I don’t need to go near a building or crash site to explain why I question the 9/11 events and KNOW that it was something other then we have been told.

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? I have. I read some of the following in the pages of our own controlled and compromised report of those events:

- That the head of the Pakistani ISI was in DC that morning meeting with Bob Graham and Porter Goss. The same man who wired Mohammad Atta $100,000 a few days prior.

-That the “source of the funds” was of little importance. Huh?

- That the towers had a hollow, core shaft. Huh?

- That the various “put options” put on United and American Airlines was not important because the sources “had no links to Al Qaeda.” So come to a conclusion and then only use info that fits that conclusion? How about finding out who did it?

- That NORARD generals lied under oath.

- That Pentagon officials lied under oath.

There is much more. I suggest reading it for yourself. Info about the war games that day is of huge importance, yet it’s not talked about. It all about “missiles hitting the Pentagon” and other various fringe info. How about NOARD, FEMA, NORTHCOM, and the NRO all having exercises that morning. Convenient isn’t it? In fact FEMA was in NYC the night before, ready to go into action. They were on TV on 9/12 saying that! The NRO (whom would have STOPPED the planes 2, 3, and 4) had a drill with a plane hitting their offices, thus clearing out the entire office. Those Arabs are really smart it seems or lucky. Read it for yourself. The lead “hijacker” Mohammad Atta trained at US Naval bases in both Pensacola, FL and in Monterey, CA. No conspiracy, he trained there. Don’t believe me, again look it up.

Truth is I don’t know the “truth” of what happened. I think some people in our government and more likely those in the private sector of the military industrial complex sold us out and assisted/allowed this to happen. To what extent and who it was I am not sure. I know the PNAC guys said 10 months prior that they need this “new pearl harbor” event to carry out their plans in their own documents. I know the private companies who are wicked beyond belief have made a literal killing off these wars. Who did it is something for the courts if they were not crooked to decide. The official story on its face is an insulting lie. I think anyone who takes it at face value is themselves, a “nutjob.”

 

[Michael L.]

9/11 drives me crazy... people who do not believe in the Moon landing also drive me nuts. But the big thing annoying me lately is the whole Freemason secret society thing. I would think that if the Masons were secretly in control of the world they would be able to organize a better barbeque than the Optimists, but the Optimists totally tear up the pork steak!

They run a better Xmas Tree lot too!

 

[Astroboy]

From a conspiracy site 9-11 Review: UNLIKELY: 'The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack'

Even they doubt this story.
_________________________________________________________
UNLIKELY: 'The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack'

The following e-mail was forwarded by John Kaminski to a CC list of about 50 people in April of 2004. Subsequently, Victor Thorn published an article amplifying the e-mail and promoting its assertions as fact.

From: "Scott Forbes" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Official Ver[si]on of 9/11 - new info
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

To John Kaminski,

I was pleased to read your article "The Official Version of 9/11 is a Hoax"
... Please note some other facts. My name is Scott Forbes and I still work
for Fiduciary Trust. In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough[t] back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts. Whats
to hide? Can you help publicise them?

Please feel free to mail me.

Scott Forbes

After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of 'Scott Forbes'. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.

* It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. This would create a profound disruption of business for dozens of companies, and would be noticed by thousands of people. Thousands of e-mails would have been broadcast and a great deal of work would have been done by scores of employees to prepare for the outage.
* It makes less sense that they would take such a drastic action but only for one half of one tower. Why was the disruption only necessary for the upper floors of the South Tower, or how would similar power-downs of the other sections have gone unnoticed?
* Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.
* Contrary to the e-mail's assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. If power to the security systems were interrupted, many doors would remain unopenable except by key.

Scott Forbes stands by his story, but has not provided any corroborating information that might allow it to be verified. An article on George Washington's Blog dated November 24, 2005 contains an Interview with Scott Forbes, based on a half-hour telephone conversation in late 2004. The interview provides only a few additional details to the story, such as that Scott worked on the 97th floor of the South Tower, and that the "power down" lasted from approximately 12 noon on Saturday, September 8 through 2 PM on Sunday, September 9. Although the interviewer queries Forbes on several of the points noted above, Forbes fails to explain any of them. He states that "Many, many people worked on the power down" but does not provide any names. When queried on how he knew that the "power down" affected floors 50 and up, Forbes expresses less certainty than in his original e-mail:
GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

 

[Astroboy]

UFOs are a true mystery. 9/11 is a tragic event not a mystery. That is why I am here.

 

[cottonzway]

UFOs are a true mystery. 9/11 is a tragic event not a mystery. That is why I am here.

That is your opinion. It's the opinion of society that BOTH topics (even though they obviously have nothing to do with each other) are "fringe" in nature. So I stand by my comment about throwing stones in a glass house.

 

[BrandonD]

I’m not going to go and “explain” all of what you said because it is pointless. It is not even the points that people should have been focusing on in the first place.

I completely agree. Anyone with an iota of honesty (and without total ignorance) will at least admit that there are accredited experts arguing on both sides of this case. Which is why it's completely futile to argue the arcane technical points.

All that is worth discussing is the facts. And all the information one needs is inside his own head, his own knowledge of human nature. Judge one group of men as you would judge any other.

A -The administration blocked an independent investigation into the crime.
B -The administration disposed of the evidence at the crime scene.
C- The administration allowed the criminal's entire family to leave the country when all other planes in the country were grounded.
D- The administration is not looking for the alleged criminal. Bush has actually said the words, "I truly am not that concerned about him".

The list continues. These are not arcane points to argue, they are facts. If this were a murder case, any dime-store investigator would tell you that these are all obvious signs of complicity, at the very least.

There is no smoking gun in this case. But if one wipes away the patriotism encrusting his eyes and looks at this situation as if it occurred in another country, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.

 

[Lavarat]

1. Illuminatti nonsense
2. Alex Jones "martial law"
3. chemtrails

 

[Astroboy]

I’m not going to go and “explain” all of what you said because it is pointless. It is not even the points that people should have been focusing on in the first place.

I completely agree. Anyone with an iota of honesty (and without total ignorance) will at least admit that there are accredited experts arguing on both sides of this case. Which is why it's completely futile to argue the arcane technical points.

All that is worth discussing is the facts. And all the information one needs is inside his own head, his own knowledge of human nature. Judge one group of men as you would judge any other.

A -The administration blocked an independent investigation into the crime.
B -The administration disposed of the evidence at the crime scene.
C- The administration allowed the criminal's entire family to leave the country when all other planes in the country were grounded.
D- The administration is not looking for the alleged criminal. Bush has actually said the words, "I truly am not that concerned about him".

The list continues. These are not arcane points to argue, they are facts. If this were a murder case, any dime-store investigator would tell you that these are all obvious signs of complicity, at the very least.

There is no smoking gun in this case. But if one wipes away the patriotism encrusting his eyes and looks at this situation as if it occurred in another country, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.

One always needs to check the sources of information and ask themselves who is presenting the information and whether they have an agenda.

You can selectively pick any "fact" and shape it into something that is, at the very least, misleading and at worst outright fraud. The use of statistics is a classic example of how numbers can be use to explain one position or another depending on the biases of the presenter. Everyday studies come out proving one thing and another will come out months later that prove the exact opposite. They can't all be correct but it happens continuously. The tobacco companies were notorious for funding misleading or fraudulent scientific studies that proved cigarettes were not harmful or addictive. Holocaust deniers have used selective information and misleading or fraudulent science to prove their case. Much of the Arab world believes that the Holocaust did not occur. Many people believe Jews are behind 9/11. Just because there are a lot of people who believe in something doesn't make it true.

Just as people can be misled by the governments people can just as easily be fooled by anti-government run organizations that put out the same kind of disinformation campaigns. I am not a flag waving lemming nor am I a blind follower of popular beliefs. I am neither a fan of Republicans, Democrats, or Ron Paul. I reserve the right to question the questioner. I am open to changing my mind given that an argument is persuasive enough. Perhaps it's the conspiracy glasses that needs to be put aside.

In order to use eyewitnesses testimony to prove something you have to separate facts from conclusions. If you see a UFO you can only say that you saw a Unidentified Flying Object. You cannot say it's an alien ship from Zeta Reticula. You can't even say it's alien. If someone hears an explosion it doesn't mean an explosive detonation device was the cause. You're drawing a conclusion without proof. The noise can be from numerous sources including a falling elevator from cut cables, structural failure, exploding transformers, etc. There have been around 200 inmates on death row who have been release over the years because many were wrongly accused largely based solely on eyewitness testimony. DNA, which is proof, set them free.

There are few things that we can be absolutely certain about. There can be only the most probable and the improbable. So, what is more probable? A grand conspiracy involving thousands of people who have managed to keep silent despite the murder of 3,000 people. Or, a terrorist attack on a building that has been a prime target before and was previously attacked.

What is more likely? Planes crashing into two building causing them to fall down and creating enough damage during the collapse to cause a nearby building to fall? Or, a controlled explosion in three separate buildings timed perfectly and situated perfectly in the same location as the plane strikes?

I might even be able to believe the conspiracy ideas if the whole demolition theory was taken out of the equation. 9/11 "truthers" just can't let go of this thing. Yet, it is their weakest argument. Come on now, if you can bring down the buildings with demolition charges why do you even need planes to hit it? If you have planes to crash into buildings to kill enough people to justify war why do you need demolition? Did the logic train leave the station without 9/11 conspiracy believers?

I am done with this thread.

 

[BrandonD]

One always needs to check the sources of information and ask themselves who is presenting the information and whether they have an agenda.

You can selectively pick any "fact" and shape it into something that is, at the very least, misleading and at worst outright fraud. The use of statistics is a classic example of how numbers can be use to explain one position or another depending on the biases of the presenter. Everyday studies come out proving one thing and another will come out months later that prove the exact opposite. They can't all be correct but it happens continuously. The tobacco companies were notorious for funding misleading or fraudulent scientific studies that proved cigarettes were not harmful or addictive. Holocaust deniers have used selective information and misleading or fraudulent science to prove their case. Much of the Arab world believes that the Holocaust did not occur. Many people believe Jews are behind 9/11. Just because there are a lot of people who believe in something doesn't make it true.

Just as people can be misled by the governments people can just as easily be fooled by anti-government run organizations that put out the same kind of disinformation campaigns. I am not a flag waving lemming nor am I a blind follower of popular beliefs. I am neither a fan of Republicans, Democrats, or Ron Paul. I reserve the right to question the questioner. I am open to changing my mind given that an argument is persuasive enough. Perhaps it's the conspiracy glasses that needs to be put aside.

In order to use eyewitnesses testimony to prove something you have to separate facts from conclusions. If you see a UFO you can only say that you saw a Unidentified Flying Object. You cannot say it's an alien ship from Zeta Reticula. You can't even say it's alien. If someone hears an explosion it doesn't mean an explosive detonation device was the cause. You're drawing a conclusion without proof. The noise can be from numerous sources including a falling elevator from cut cables, structural failure, exploding transformers, etc. There have been around 200 inmates on death row who have been release over the years because many were wrongly accused largely based solely on eyewitness testimony. DNA, which is proof, set them free.

There are few things that we can be absolutely certain about. There can be only the most probable and the improbable. So, what is more probable? A grand conspiracy involving thousands of people who have managed to keep silent despite the murder of 3,000 people. Or, a terrorist attack on a building that has been a prime target before and was previously attacked.

What is more likely? Planes crashing into two building causing them to fall down and creating enough damage during the collapse to cause a nearby building to fall? Or, a controlled explosion in three separate buildings timed perfectly and situated perfectly in the same location as the plane strikes?

I might even be able to believe the conspiracy ideas if the whole demolition theory was taken out of the equation. 9/11 "truthers" just can't let go of this thing. Yet, it is their weakest argument. Come on now, if you can bring down the buildings with demolition charges why do you even need planes to hit it? If you have planes to crash into buildings to kill enough people to justify war why do you need demolition? Did the logic train leave the station without 9/11 conspiracy believers?

I am done with this thread.

1. I didn't say anything about demolition charges. I think there is an argument to be made for it, but that argument is far from conclusive.

What can be concluded with relative certainty, as I said in my previous post, is our administration's complicity in the crime itself. HOW it was done it still a matter of debate, and it will continue to be a matter of debate until the simple fact of complicity comes to the light.

2. I completely agree with all that you said about statistics and eyewitness testimony. But that really has nothing to do with the facts I stated. They are facts that can be gleaned from very mainstream sources.

3. Your argument of "which is more likely" is a nice illustration of how Occam's razor can be used to mislead, *exactly* as statistics can. And for the *exact* same reason as statistics, information can be cherry-picked. For a person who is not privy to all information, any Occam's argument can appear to be very logical.

After the collapse of the Silver Bridge in 1967, every last piece of this bridge was dredged out of the water and the ENTIRE BRIDGE was reconstructed in a nearby city. This was done because that tragic occurrence was unprecedented, and officials wanted to discover how they might build future bridges that could withstand such a disaster.

In the occurrence of an unprecedented tragedy, this is an example of the normal behavior of officials. They allow experts to inspect the wreckage, so that such a thing cannot occur again.

A similar absolutely unprecedented event occurred in 2001, the evidence didn't even need to be dredged up from the bottom of a lake, and yet the behavior of officials was very different.

Actions and behavior are always the significant points to look at. Not lights shooting out of planes, not 16-foot holes, not explosion points in the buildings.

--The behavior of the administration-- It is the behavior of a guilty party, through and through.

 

[cottonzway]

It's a shame you are "done with the thread", Astroboy, because you may have learned something.