Thread: 9/11

Originally Posted by Marcus

Но атаковали-то Пентагон. Если б это было возможно, как же Америка смогла победить Советский Союз, который был гораздо сильнее, чем все Аль-Кайды вместе взятые.

I trust you meant to say "смогла бы победить Советский Союз" and it was only a typo you made, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

На какой основе вы исключаете из подозрения российское руководство? Или китайское? Или европейский союз?

("On what basis are you excluding from suspicion the Russian government, or the Chinese, or the European Union?" -- please correct my Russian phrasing!)

Correcting.
"На каких основаниях [каком основании] вы исключаете из круга подозреваемых российское руководство?"

As for China or Russia playing a part. Find me just one page or any article or any speculation whatsoever that either is involved.

That's exactly my point -- there is no such speculation. But there ought to be such speculation, at least preliminarily, if one is arguing that SOMEONE planted bombs in the building because the "burning jet fuel alone" explanation is scientifically implausible.

Let me repeat this for you: all your arguments-from-metallurgy can (in principle) show scientifically that there were explosives placed in the buildings ahead of time. But metallurgy and other scientific arguments do not justify leaping to the conclusion that the explosives were placed by the US government -- nor do they justify ruling out the possibility that China or Russia or Belgium planted the explosives.

So, the reason that there are thousands of conspiracy pages arguing that the US planned 9/11, but zero conspiracy pages arguing that China or Russia or Belgium did it, has nothing to do with "basic scientific facts" that a high-school student could understand, and everything to do with the political biases that conspiracy-theorists bring to the table.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Do you think I have a special anti-American bias?

I suspect that, like 14Russian, you have a special bias in favor of any conceivable theory that mentions the "New World Order."

And I also know, from past threads, that you never favor a simple explanation when an incredibly elaborate conspiracy will suffice.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

LOL But, do you try any research yourselves?!? NOPE!

Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

That's exactly my point -- there is no such speculation. But there ought to be such speculation, at least preliminarily, if one is arguing that SOMEONE planted bombs in the building because the "burning jet fuel alone" explanation is scientifically implausible.

Let me repeat this for you: all your arguments-from-metallurgy can (in principle) show scientifically that there were explosives placed in the buildings ahead of time. But metallurgy and other scientific arguments do not justify leaping to the conclusion that the explosives were placed by the US government -- nor do they justify ruling out the possibility that China or Russia or Belgium planted the explosives.

So, the reason that there are thousands of conspiracy pages arguing that the US planned 9/11, but zero conspiracy pages arguing that China or Russia or Belgium did it, has nothing to do with "basic scientific facts" that a high-school student could understand, and everything to do with the political biases that conspiracy-theorists bring to the table.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHINA OR RUSSIA. I've said this already. That is why I said go ahead and find any sources implicating either. But, there is much evidence to support U.S. involvement as I have also stated.

A person who has even the slightest bit of intellect would be able to comprehend this without posting the same inquiries over and over.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I suspect that, like 14Russian, you have a special bias in favor of any conceivable theory that mentions the "New World Order."

And I also know, from past threads, that you never favor a simple explanation when an incredibly elaborate conspiracy will suffice.

Um, okay?!? And I can say you have NOT even checked out even one link. Out of hundreds. So, guess what, I think you have a bias against anything that suggests 'conspiracy.' You can suspect whatever you want. You haven't researched anything.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

LOL! So, out of the source, you question the kind of language?

No, nevermind what is proved or what the findings are or the arguments but the language is suspicious and questionable. Ok, you pretty much have expressed explicitly that you're brainwashed like Mr. Crocodile and a waste of time.

P.S. Of course, I've researched but I'd only have to read a few pages and watch a few videos to say I've researched more than you have.

Many of the sources dedicate much of their life to investigating the event but because China/Russia doesn't show up, they're not credible? I'm not sure how you reach your argument but it's absurd.

Wow.

RT invaded MasterRussian...

That's MY theory.

Originally Posted by capecoddah

Wow.

RT invaded MasterRussian...

That's MY theory.

There's no point debating this here, really.

Most of the posters won't check out the evidence and although I know what Mr. Throbert is getting at, you could do that all day long: Why can't it be North Korea? Why not Pakistan? Maybe a troika of Canada, India and Wonderland. You can name anyone and suggest it's a superpower to get maximum effect. Yet, with countless sources and investigations by Source A, B, C and so on, no one has any evidence of it being China or Russia. It just gets away from what has been found or it is a ruse to get away from the big questions. If you want to play that game and for others that make jokes, have fun.

Also, with an Admin that is encouraging it, and other cheerleaders adding to it, it is just another example of how a perpetrator can get away with it. It all speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

A person who has even the slightest bit of intellect would be able to comprehend this without posting the same inquiries over and over.

I'm just gonna go on my intuitive perceptions here and say that of all the people in this thread, Throbert is probably among the most intellectual, actually...

Originally Posted by Deborski

I'm just gonna go on my intuitive perceptions here and say that of all the people in this thread, Throbert is probably among the most intellectual, actually...

Throbert was asking for 'scientific facts' and the scientific evidence (of all that's out there) was NOT implicating any blame or accountability of either China or Russia. So, besides stating this umpteen times and Mr. McGee asking about it more than once, I would say your intuition sucks.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I would say your intuition sucks.

Not as badly as your manners

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

I partially disagree with the applicability of your example. A while ago I tried to find a material that could put up the existence of dinosaurs with the Bible and ultimately failed. Yet I can't easily 'buy' your (presumed) inference that Darwinians are unequivocally right simply because thus far Darwinian scientists have never demonstrated how the very first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism. And this is a pivotal element. Moreover, according to other religions, Hinduism for example, life and the universe exist in cycles for eons of years and their origin is obscure and generally beyond human comprehension. So, the fact that Christian sources provide us with presumably faulty knowledge points out only on the weakness of the particular religious standpoint and can't prove that Darwinians have won the battle and provided us with the unequivocally satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. It’ just a hypnoses like the Big Bang and other scientific 'superstitions' which may not stand the test of time in the long run IMO.

I think you have a bias against anything that suggests 'conspiracy.'

As I said earlier in the thread, I have a bias against unnecessarily complicated conspiracies -- and it seems to me that the "explosives in the buildings" falls in the category of "unnecessarily complicated."

I mean, without making ANY assumptions about the identities of the hijackers, it's a given that four planes were hijacked with the intention of crashing them into buildings, and three of them hit their intended targets.

So, assuming that the US government planned the hijackings of the planes, why would they bother to also put explosives in the WTC buildings? Wiring such large buildings for a "controlled demolition" is a huge undertaking that would either take a large team of workers, or a small team working over a long period.

Either way, the risk is increased that the conspiracy will be discovered. (More co-conspirators mean more potential "leaks"; a longer preparation time means a greater likelihood that a building security guard or a fire official doing a routine inspection will notice the big package of wires attached to the support columns.)

So, placing explosives increases the risk that the conspiracy will fail, but for what benefit? I can't see any obvious gain from putting explosives in the buildings if you're already planning to fly passenger jets into both WTC Towers (plus the Pentagon and some other unknown target in Washington).

Of course, 14Russian may object that if there were no explosives in the WTC, the buildings would not and could not have completely collapsed, because burning jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to weaken steel, and WTC7 was not hit directly by a plane, etc.

To which I answer: Even assuming that's scientifically correct, so what if the buildings hadn't totally collapsed? If 9/11 was indeed a US government conspiracy to create an excuse for wars abroad or to declare martial law, I'm fairly confident that even a partial collapse of the towers would have been more than sufficient "excuse." If both towers had remained standing below the crash zones, we would have still had a casus belli. Heck, even if both of the NYC planes had gone down in rural fields like Flt. 93, and only the Pentagon had actually been hit, the successful attack on the Pentagon plus the three unsuccessful attempts would have been a reasonable justification for war all by itself.

In short, putting bombs in the buildings strikes me as quite superfluous, adding too much risk without producing enough gains to outweigh the extra risk.

P.S. This "debunking the 9/11 debunkers" page notes that the tallest "skyscraper" that was (beyond doubt) brought down by a "controlled demolition" team was the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit -- which was only 26 stories tall, and it took a team of twelve workers about 24 days of labor just to place the explosives. And among them, WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 had more than 260 stories, meaning the prepartion for a controlled demolition would require far more time and/or far larger teams of explosives experts.

Originally Posted by diogen_

I partially disagree with the applicability of your example. A while ago I tried to find a material that could put up the existence of dinosaurs with the Bible and ultimately failed. Yet I can't easily 'buy' your (presumed) inference that Darwinians are unequivocally right simply because thus far Darwinian scientists have never demonstrated how the very first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism....

I agree with your general point, although I deliberately used the example of "Young Earth Creationism" because it runs afoul not only of biology, but also geology and nuclear physics and astronomy. But you're absolutely correct that "atheistic evolution" and "Genesis literalism" are not the only two options available. (There are theistic cosmologies from many other religions, and there are various forms of "theistic evolution" arguing that the God of Abraham -- or some other Supreme Being -- in some way or another designed and supervised the evolutionary development of life over billions of years.)

By the way, since 14Russian thinks I've done no "research," I must ask whether 14Russian has ever "researched" sites like Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage -- which, let it be noted, is skeptical of the "alternative" theories, and not skeptical of the "official version" (or at least the scientific aspects of the "official version"). And it goes into rather exhaustive detail about the specific claims made by the conspiracy theorists -- as well as the information that conspiracy theorists DON'T discuss.

Just as one example, here's a diagram of the debris field from the two towers, from the sub-page devoted to WTC 7:



Why is this significant? Because, while conspiracy theorists make a big deal about the fact that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane (implying that there was no major structural damage) the building was hit by large and heavy pieces of WTC 1! And we know from photographic evidence that debris from the North Tower struck WTC 7 in way that damaged some of the support columns in the lower half of the building (i.e., there was the weight of perhaps 25 or more stories above the weakened section). Moreover, the region struck by heavy debris was in the zone where the emergency generators and their fuel tanks were located.

Of course, these observations don't prove that the fires started by falling debris (plus the damaged steel columns on the building's southern side) were sufficient to collapse WTC 7. Nor do they disprove that there were explosives already in the building. But what this page shows, IMHO, is that conspiracy theorists vastly overstate the importance of WTC 7 as a "SMOKING GUN!!!!" that can only be explained by a huge gummint plot.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

You can name anyone and suggest it's a superpower to get maximum effect.

Why suggest that a "superpower" was behind it?

You don't need the resources of a "superpower" to smuggle knives through an airport metal detector and then tell the passengers and crew that you've got a bomb in order to seize control of the plane (which definitely happened).

Originally Posted by Marcus

Но атаковали-то Пентагон. Если б это было возможно, как же Америка смогла победить Советский Союз, который был гораздо сильнее, чем все Аль-Кайды вместе взятые.

[a light going on...]



Hmmmm... so if America didn't plan 9/11, and it really was done by Al-Qaeda, then...

...that would suggest that the USSR was weaker or less competent than Al-Qaeda, which succeeded at something the USSR never managed to do, namely make a big smoking hole in the Pentagon. Since it's manifestly absurd that the USSR was weaker than Al-Qaeda, America must have planned 9/11, QED.

Sheesh, is that what this is about for you, Marcus?

Anyway, I would question your some of your assumptions, here:

Америка смогла победить Советский Союз

I'm sure Ronald Raygun would be delighted to hear you say that "Америка победила Советский Союз," but I don't think that's a fair description of history. Rather, I would borrow a quote from Хрущёв and say that "Америка похоронила Советский Союз" -- we didn't defeat you guys, we have outlived you (thus far!) and were still around to attend your funeral, to use Khrushchev's metaphor. Moreover, in whatever sense we "defeated" you, we did so not on the battlefield, but mainly by having more disposable cash to spend on hugely expensive nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, Al Qaeda has so far not managed to either победить or похоронить America -- they succeeded in killing a bunch of people, destroy some valuable NYC real estate, and cause some expensive damage to one side of the Pentagon (which has long since been repaired).

And apart from that, the USSR's ambitions towards America (whatever they may have been) were obviously restrained by the fact that the Soviet political and military leaders were essentially rational and they took the nuclear "MAD" threat seriously.

But Al Qaeda may have had the luxury and advantage of not caring whether the US nuked Mecca in response to 9/11 (since the destruction of Mecca would have either caused a worldwide uprising of a billion Muslims, or possibly triggered the Second Coming Of Muhammad in a majestic fiery chariot from heaven -- either way, it's win-win from Al Qaeda's perspective).

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Why suggest that a "superpower" was behind it?

You don't need the resources of a "superpower" to smuggle knives through an airport metal detector and then tell the passengers and crew that you've got a bomb in order to seize control of the plane (which definitely happened).

All your speculation and questions have been addressed or answered. But, you refused to look into it. I.e. you didn't view the videos I posed.

Also, since I am such a rude and fanatical person as accused and addressed as so, I don't find any purpose in continuing.

The author you also ignored and stated in explicit terms as suspicious because of the language some website used, has very methodically debunked the 'Debunkers.' Why would I continue when you are only picking certain areas to debate on?

I think after 10 years, most people who have read even bits and parts on 9/11 would be aware of the Debunkers page and the NIST report. Both which have been addressed by various sources.

Debunking the Debunkers

Debunking the '9/11 Debunkers' With Stewart Bradley - 911truth.org

Dr. David Ray Griffin - Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers - Vancouver BC, May 16, 2007 : Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical - Pt.1 of 9 - YouTube

As for the security in the building and time for explosives, this has been explained already, a long time ago:

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

World Trade Center | Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives

World Trade Center

Security, Secrecy and a Bush Brother | 911Blogger.com

There are also numerous sites that state that Marvin Bush was gone but there's nothing (i.e. none) to suggest he had no role.

Anyway, these are too much of a 'conspiracy' for most people so who cares, I guess.