What's with all the conspiracy theories?

[Btodd]

9/11 and the Birther claims are legitimate theories.

Baloney. In a general sense; you're right. One should question everything. But once the details are out, then continuing down the path of proposing far more absurd explanations for a topic than the 'official' one is not skepticism; it's being a blind reactionary who refuses to ever accept the truth, and always takes the opposite position of any possible authority figure. In doing so, they make themselves a caricature of what they often accuse others of being...people who 'just believe whatever they're told'. Conspiracy blogs and YouTube videos have no less of an agenda than the U.S. Government, or whomever else you wanna claim is 'big brother'.


Btodd

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

See above. I might also mention the pentagon...no steel reinforced concrete there...not 3 rings in...right?

Glad you mentioned the Pentagon. Now - since these conspiracy theories are designed to alledge that it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, you should be able to tell us where the real plane went. You know, the hijacked one full of real passengers.

 

[Nekoda]

Glad you mentioned the Pentagon. Now - since these conspiracy theories are designed to alledge that it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, you should be able to tell us where the real plane went. You know, the hijacked one full of real passengers.

National News: Today - a New Jersey commuter bus, doing 190 miles an hour on black ice through a snowstorm, missed the "bridge out" sign on the freeway and launched over 2000 feet of air to the other side of the bridge, where it lost control and was swallowed by a hole in the ground about half the diameter of the bus itself.

20 people died. Although other news agencies are reporting 23 and other reporting 17. Here are there names: blah blah blah. None of the bodies, or luggage was recovered. It was all vaporized by the crash and ensuing explosion.

Thinking person: What a load of bull! Half of that story doesn't make sense. Commuter buses don't go 190 miles an hour, to start, and especially not with a bus load of passengers. In a snowstorm and over black ice?? That's rich. Jumps 2000 feet THEN loses control and disappears into a hole smaller than itself in the ground??? With very little wreckage and no remains of passengers or luggage?? You HAVE to be kidding me!!

Person who is hypnotized by T.V. and believes their press wouldn't lie to them:
Hey thinking person! You must be one of those conspiracy wackos! The helicopter footage shows it all! Even the jump! And, if you think your so smart, perhaps you can tell me where the passengers are huh? huh? OF COURSE they were vaporized. It's within the realm of probabilities. Psh...commuter buses CAN go 190 mph and it's possible at that speed they can even jump 2000 feet into the air. I've seen it on T.V. and in movies.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Wiskey Tango...?

 

[usexpat97]

The Pentagon "missile" theory is disinformation in and of itself. Witnesses report a plane hit the Pentagon--just not a commercial airliner. A typical straw man argument to try and throw people off the scent.

 

[Nekoda]

The Pentagon "missile" theory is disinformation in and of itself. Witnesses report a plane hit the Pentagon--just not a commercial airliner. A typical straw man argument to try and throw people off the scent.

Witnesses like this guy?

Wie glaubwürdig ist Mike Walter - YouTube

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm not sure what that video's supposed to prove. Have you gone to google streetview or google earth to verify that he could not have seen any of this or are you just taking the youtube uploaders word for thing?

Here's the StreetView link to his alleged location (yay, I can post links now!) - I see no problem with what he says. According to the overhead diagram at 00:13 of your video, the plane would have been coming from behind him to his left, crossing the roadway from left to right and, if I understand things correctly, going behind that hill and stand of trees.

Now, some of the landscaping has probably since been redone since 9/11, so StreetView might not show exactly what was there that day. But any changes are probably not very drastic. Still, I fail to see how this is some blatant lie.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to answer all of the rebuttals & questions I've posed. Are you going to answer those or are you just going to ignore them and throw up more claims that are just as easily dismissed?

-Dan.

 

[cow451]

The Pentagon "missile" theory is disinformation in and of itself. Witnesses report a plane hit the Pentagon--just not a commercial airliner. A typical straw man argument to try and throw people off the scent.

So which theory are you attached to? You have to admit that it is difficult to keep up with the various Truther conspiracy theories. There Truthers that seriously contend it was a cruise missle. So, it is not a Straw Man.

 

[cow451]

On crosswalk at least, the conspiracy folks were censored a lot. They didn't last very long. Simply because of their beliefs.

Over there there was a forum specifically for Conspiracy folks. There was no "censorship". The rules were the same. Unlike here, duplicate threads were no allowed.

 

[cow451]

National News: Today - a New Jersey commuter bus, doing 190 miles an hour on black ice through a snowstorm, missed the "bridge out" sign on the freeway and launched over 2000 feet of air to the other side of the bridge, where it lost control and was swallowed by a hole in the ground about half the diameter of the bus itself.

20 people died. Although other news agencies are reporting 23 and other reporting 17. Here are there names: blah blah blah. None of the bodies, or luggage was recovered. It was all vaporized by the crash and ensuing explosion.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Nekoda]

I'm not sure what that video's supposed to prove. Have you gone to google streetview or google earth to verify that he could not have seen any of this or are you just taking the youtube uploaders word for thing?

Here's the StreetView link to his alleged location (yay, I can post links now!) - I see no problem with what he says. According to the overhead diagram at 00:13 of your video, the plane would have been coming from behind him to his left, crossing the roadway from left to right and, if I understand things correctly, going behind that hill and stand of trees.

Now, some of the landscaping has probably since been redone since 9/11, so StreetView might not show exactly what was there that day. But any changes are probably not very drastic. Still, I fail to see how this is some blatant lie.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to answer all of the rebuttals & questions I've posed. Are you going to answer those or are you just going to ignore them and throw up more claims that are just as easily dismissed?

-Dan.

I dunno Dan...call me a country bumpkin...but if darn see a cow pass by me at...hyuck...500+ miles per hour...while at least half my attention's on the road...would I be able to clearly see the AA on the side of that cow?

Oh, of course I would. I also believe cows can fly at 500 mph just a few feet off the ground.

Hyuck.

Sorry Dan - but people like you deserve to be psy-oped. Please join the military if you believe this crap and do those soldiers over there a favor by serving your Country (ahem - I mean - corporate masters) will. The draft dodgers in government will be sure to give you their heart felt condolences at national memorials, as long as they're looking good for the camera and can speak of the "enduring spirit of freedom" and "greatness of America" and "commitment to rid the world of the evil terrorists who hate our freedoms".

And if you're lacking the motivation. Just watch "united 93" again. Let's roll, Dan the man. Grab a gun and defend democracy!!

 

[Blackwater Babe]

or are you just taking the youtube uploaders word for thing?

You have to ask?

 

[Husky7]

Baloney. In a general sense; you're right. One should question everything. But once the details are out, then continuing down the path of proposing far more absurd explanations for a topic than the 'official' one is not skepticism; it's being a blind reactionary who refuses to ever accept the truth, and always takes the opposite position of any possible authority figure. In doing so, they make themselves a caricature of what they often accuse others of being...people who 'just believe whatever they're told'. Conspiracy blogs and YouTube videos have no less of an agenda than the U.S. Government, or whomever else you wanna claim is 'big brother'.


Btodd

Look, I've never claimed to know the absolute truth on 9/11. No one, including our Congressman know what happened that day. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that: theories. However, if you've ever taken the time to read the official story, to examine the evidence, to listen to eyewitnesses, and other experts on the matter who disagree with the story it's far from settled. The official story is not "the truth." Rather, it is a theory just like the ones you are bashing. As of now, the truth has not come out.

 

[Btodd]

Look, I've never claimed to know the absolute truth on 9/11. No one, including our Congressman know what happened that day. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that: theories. However, if you've ever taken the time to read the official story, to examine the evidence, to listen to eyewitnesses, and other experts on the matter who disagree with the story it's far from settled. The official story is not "the truth." Rather, it is a theory just like the ones you are bashing. As of now, the truth has not come out.

No, it is not a theory like the ones I am bashing. Let's not play the card of relativism (all theories are equally as likely). If there's some particular point that is giving you trouble, just say so...but there is a mountain of evidence to support the 'official story', and a whole lot of conjecture, misrepresentation, and plain old misunderstanding of science going on in the conspiracy theories. I have taken an enormous amount of time reading not only the claims of the official story, but also feel like I've heard about every conspiracy claim ever made at this point. And they're nonsense.

If you have something that's troubling you, shoot away.


Btodd

 

[iluvatar5150]

I dunno Dan...call me a country bumpkin...but if darn see a cow pass by me at...hyuck...500+ miles per hour...while at least half my attention's on the road...would I be able to clearly see the AA on the side of that cow?

Uh... yeah, if those letters were 20' high. Ever been to an air show? Ever seen the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds? You can still make out logos on those when they do high-speed fly-bys and they're 1/3 the size of a passenger jet.

Oh, of course I would. I also believe cows can fly at 500 mph just a few feet off the ground.

Why do you get so hung up on this? The planes didn't achieve cruising speed at low altitude. They were cruising at nearly 30,000 feet for over 20 minutes and only descended to low altitude within the last few minutes of their flights.

9-11 Research: NTSB Reports

Even assuming that you're correct that these planes can't achieve that high a speed when flying at such a low altitude, that doesn't mean that they can't maintain that speed when rapidly descending from a higher altitude or that they'll automatically explode if they try to go that fast for a brief period of time. Yes, these planes may have been overstressed when they hit the towers, but overstressed doesn't mean automatic disintegration.

In 1994, a FedEx employee deadheading on FedEx Flight 705 (a DC-10) tried to hijack the plane by bludgeoning the crew with a clawhammer. In an attempt to thwart the hijacking and throw the hijacker off-balance, the pilot (a Navy vet) executed a series of extreme maneuvers including flying the plane inverted and at transsonic speeds - WELL beyond the design specs of the aircraft. They landed safely, aside from the injuries caused by the attack itself.

If the 9/11 planes had tried to maintain that speed for a significant length of time or if they'd tried to perform any more extreme maneuvers, they may very well have experienced structural problems, but they didn't. They were only that low for a couple minutes.

-Dan.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You have to ask?

It was rhetorical.

It's disheartening to see Nekoda repeatedly dodging my challenges. I would expect better from someone who puts so much time into studying a particular topic.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

Uh... yeah, if those letters were 20' high. Ever been to an air show? Ever seen the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds? You can still make out logos on those when they do high-speed fly-bys and they're 1/3 the size of a passenger jet.

To be honest, no, I've never been to one. But there are *significant* differences in perspective when you are already looking for something, *know* what you are looking for, have time to see it come in, and follow it as it comes in close and goes out.

If I were on a freeway, on the side of the road watching traffic out my side window (*not* driving),

...expecting to see cars and traffic,

... staring straight out at cars going by(not following them as they come closer to my car and pass it),

... say at 50 mph

...and a large truck passes by with large lettering on the side...

- I might - just might, in that split second where it crosses my vision, make out what that lettering is.

Multiply that speed by 100 (+some), and put into the context that I would have even less time to look if I'm actively engaged in directing a motor vehicle down a freeway, not expecting to, nor looking for, anything like a passenger jet flying for a split second across my field of vision - then, no, there is no believable chance I would have "clearly made out the AA on the side" as Mike Walters testifies.

The other thing that's wrong with Mike's testimony is what it leaves out. A massive amount of Wake Turbulence is created by aircraft so large - yet we hear nothing about cars or trucks on the freeway flying around when hit by that Turbulence - in fact there is no reports of any kind of traffic disturbance to this effect from that "plane". Wake Turbulence, in case you didn't know - often lasts for multiple minutes.

Btw - no Wake Turbulence in the explosions we saw at the WTC either. No Wake Turbulence = No planes hit those buildings - or at least the video we saw is fake.

Why do you get so hung up on this? The planes didn't achieve cruising speed at low altitude. They were cruising at nearly 30,000 feet for over 20 minutes and only descended to low altitude within the last few minutes of their flights.

9-11 Research: NTSB Reports

Even assuming that you're correct that these planes can't achieve that high a speed when flying at such a low altitude, that doesn't mean that they can't maintain that speed when rapidly descending from a higher altitude or that they'll automatically explode if they try to go that fast for a brief period of time. Yes, these planes may have been overstressed when they hit the towers, but overstressed doesn't mean automatic disintegration.

In 1994, a FedEx employee deadheading on FedEx Flight 705 (a DC-10) tried to hijack the plane by bludgeoning the crew with a clawhammer. In an attempt to thwart the hijacking and throw the hijacker off-balance, the pilot (a Navy vet) executed a series of extreme maneuvers including flying the plane inverted and at transsonic speeds - WELL beyond the design specs of the aircraft. They landed safely, aside from the injuries caused by the attack itself.

If the 9/11 planes had tried to maintain that speed for a significant length of time or if they'd tried to perform any more extreme maneuvers, they may very well have experienced structural problems, but they didn't. They were only that low for a couple minutes.

-Dan.

Phone call. Will get to this later.

 

[iluvatar5150]

To be honest, no, I've never been to one.

You should go, they're fun.

Multiply that speed by 100 (+some), and put into the context that I would have even less time to look if I'm actively engaged in directing a motor vehicle down a freeway, not expecting to, nor looking for, anything like a passenger jet flying for a split second across my field of vision - then, no, there is no believable chance I would have "clearly made out the AA on the side" as Mike Walters testifies.

It's pretty easy when it's a logo you're already familiar with, as would be the case with a major airline and someone who lives in a major city and (I assume) works in the flight path of a major airport (which the Pentagon is).

The other thing that's wrong with Mike's testimony is what it leaves out. A massive amount of Wake Turbulence is created by aircraft so large - yet we hear nothing about cars or trucks on the freeway flying around when hit by that Turbulence - in fact there is no reports of any kind of traffic disturbance to this effect from that "plane". Wake Turbulence, in case you didn't know - often lasts for multiple minutes.

Yeah, but it's not strong enough to lift a car. The primary threat to aircraft is that it'll cause them to lose control and roll over.

Btw - no Wake Turbulence in the explosions we saw at the WTC either. No Wake Turbulence = No planes hit those buildings - or at least the video we saw is fake.

Wake turbulence doesn't necessarily cause the super-exaggerated sworls you see on an idealized smoke test. Here's a smoke test from a 747 that produced very modest swirls: Boeing 747 Wing Tip Vortex Test - YouTube

Regardless, they're just movements of air - there's no reason they couldn't be overpowered by some other event that caused an even greater movement of air like, oh I don't know, a fully loaded airplane crashing into a building and exploding.

-Dan.

 

[Trainlady]

So, all those pieces of burning airplane that were strewn all over the Plaza after the impact to the towers were props that somehow were placed there in the moments after the CGI "impact"? All those thousands of people in the area were looking up and completely missed the arrival of the prop truck and its crew as they carefully placed pieces of burning airplane, seats, luggage and body parts everywhere for us to see as we exited the building?

And the other plane parts recovered--props, too? And the piece of the plane recovered from 90 West Street that killed the people in the elevator in that building? A flying prop?

I know people who saw the plane coming toward One as they were sitting at their desks on the north side--the CGI was so carefully done that it was able to not only produce the images you see on video for people on the street to see but make it look to people inside the WTC that a plane was coming toward them, just in case they survived?

 

[Nekoda]

So, all those pieces of burning airplane that were strewn all over the Plaza after the impact to the towers were props that somehow were placed there in the moments after the CGI "impact"? All those thousands of people in the area were looking up and completely missed the arrival of the prop truck and its crew as they carefully placed pieces of burning airplane, seats, luggage and body parts everywhere for us to see as we exited the building?

You talk as if you were there. There is no video of "bodies", "burning airplanes", "seats", "luggage" etc. There's photo "evidence" - if you can believe it - like the "engine" that managed to make it's way under a piece of scaffolding - and that isn't even the right size.

I know people who saw the plane coming toward One as they were sitting at their desks on the north side--the CGI was so carefully done that it was able to not only produce the images you see on video for people on the street to see but make it look to people inside the WTC that a plane was coming toward them, just in case they survived?

I don't doubt people saw *something*. Early reports had people saying very different things. A small commuter plane, a missle, a plane without windows etc. They witness reports don't all match. And some of the witnesses are Actors. Like Mr. Harley Guy who "saw it all" and explained to us why the towers fell on that day to boot! He had the answer before anyone else did! Guess it was just a smart average NY joe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

^^ Take note also what the reporter asks the black man @ 2:33 and how that man responds. Interesting choice of words, don't you think? Pay careful attention

Of the witnesses who all agreed it was a large jet airliner (on 911) - they all HAPPENED TO HAVE HIGH POSITIONS IN THE MEDIA. Guess they had better eyes (or agendas)...

As for people you say you know who saw the plane on that day - well television is a strange animal - it can convince people they saw things they did not see. This has been proven. See:

911 Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube

Btw - there are missiles that resemble planes from a distance. Google: JAASM