It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What makes an "acceptable" 9/11 theory?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
OK. Serious question.

Recently I had an - admittedly - not entirely serious post about Godzilla actually being responsible for the destruction of the towers moved to the trash bin.

We all know that couldn't have been the case, even though I included a back story in my conspiracy about previous Godzilla films having been made as part of an ongoing disclosure programme about the creature, and that the reason no one actually saw it happen that way was because of NWO mind-control memory altering radio frequencies broadcast on TV, radio and cell phone frequencies. I even staked, with tongue in cheek, my reputation on the evidence I provided, even though I couldn't actually provide any.

It was a parody. Probably rightly trashed even though it was meant in gentle humour.

However......

If I had couched a similar story about - say - disclosure of UFO's through film, that would have been acceptable to a large section of the conspiracy community.

Certainly, mind altering radio frequencies are accepted by a large chunk of NWO conspiracy theorists.

The NWO is the very essence of conspiracy.

I couldn't back up my claims with substantive evidence. I did explain that the technology was classified, and that I was privvy to someone who knew more about it, but that was as far as I went.

All these things are acceptable to conspiracy theorists. In fact, all of these things are essential to conspiracy theorists.

Why then is the combination of those things considered a parody?

In the world of 9/11 things seem to operate a little strangley, and you need to be a many handed buddhist god to hold all the cards.

One one hand, you have the official story, about three buildings being hit by planes and one plane crash.

Then there is the story that the towers were hit by planes, but the Pentagon wasn't, and the other plane crashed.

Then there's the story that the towers were hit by planes, the Pentagon wasn't and the other plane was shot down.

Then there's the story that no planes were involved, people saw holograms and it was all a Psy-op.

Some people tie this up with an enforced governmental stand-down on the day, and an inside job.

Other folks believe it was, plainly, a terrorist action.

Others believe a combination of the two, that the government knew about the terrorists but didn't do anything about it.

Some say the planes hit, but the government pulled the towers.

Some say the planes should have bounced off.

I did the maths and came up with the figure of 8500 tonnes of force at impact of a 280,000lb 767 hitting at 466mph and therefore I don't think they would have bounced off.

Most folks would look at the events of the day, the witness testimonies, and the TV pictures, and say "thats what happened"

Some say we've all been tricked by - but provide no evidence whatsoever of their existence claiming they are "classified" - amazing technological advances in light and sound manipulation.

Its all speculation.

So, back to the question - what makes an "acceptable" theory?

What consititues "good evidence" ?

Why is it that some peoples word is determined as "good to be taken" and yet others isn't?

And if, based on everything I've posted above and I put forward my Godzilla theory, why isn't that acceptable?

I don't want a flame here. I'm after a serious discussion on conspiracy matters. I've put it in the 9/11 forum because its mainly about that subject, but I guess it relates to any and all conspiracy theory and if a mod wants to move it elsewhere (not the trash bin!) then feel free. I'd love the mods and site admins opinions on this as well




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
for me there is no acceptable theory, they all suck.

i think instead of making crazy theories and stuff, we should help the families the goverment doesnt help.

whole families without any fanancial support, without any help fromn the goverment, that is what really matters.

what it really matter is that, and nobody is trying to do something about, u people just make crazy theories about holograms and stuff.
forget that man, help the families first, then later worry about the conspiracy.

i wanna hear a victim from the wtc on this forum making theories about holograms, i guess there are none.

i know u people only do is conspiracy theories, but the families should come first.

be in the shoes of a family that has no food, no way to pay bills, and a relative of yours died on the wtc, be in thier shoes people,

just stop the crazy theories, help the real victims

THE FAMILIES [WTC VICTIMS]WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT FROM THE GOVERMENT!!!

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Drzava]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
an acceptable theory has no agenda, has supporting evidence provided to back it up, and acknowledges generally accepted facts, rather than conveniently ignoring them.

.02



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
There's no completely acceptable throery for all. The moderators may be able to explain what's stepping over their line here on ATS, but what ever they say won't apply to all posters equally. My experience here has been decent, but I see double standards applied at times and that bothers me somewhat.

I'm curious to see what the overlords have to say on this one.

[edit on 11/14/2007 by infinityoreilly]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
an acceptable theory has no agenda, has supporting evidence provided to back it up, and acknowledges generally accepted facts, rather than conveniently ignoring them.

.02


You are spot on with this line of reasoning. Speculation has no place in serious discussion. If you don't have evidence, you don't have diddly.
Agendas will also cloud one's objectivity, and make them more susceptible to BS.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Well, as a serious answer to your question, there's a very important concept that must first be understood.

What is a "Theory"



Unfortunately, common parliance has bastardized the word "theory" to be synonymous with conjecture, musing, and hypothesis.

If I suddenly proposed that gravity does not exist, but in fact, Tigers are constantly slapping things back towards the ground, and that we just don't feel it because we're used to it by now, and that's why babies cry (cause they aren't used to it yet), and we don't see them because they hide, and are really fast, I might say that is a theory. I would be wrong.

A theory is not a made-up way of explaining something for which there's been no proven Law. It is a "mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation" ( source ).

In other words, a theory is something for which there is a scientific basis, a collection of testable standards to explain a phenomena that can be replicated and predicted using that theory. If the statement made is not testable, not provable, cannot elicit a prediction or a mathematical or logical relation to the same event being able to be replicated, it is not a theory, it is, at best, a hypothesis, and in most cases, mere musing or conjecture.

Hence, the "Post-Impact Controlled Demolition Theory" is probably the closest thing I've seen so far to an honest-to-god "theory" on these 9/11 threads, in that the circumstances could technically be replicated with computer models, or real-life buildings, using known technology, to reproduce the same results. One can actually use math and known fact to logically deduce the cause of a building collapsing into its own footprint. Whether anyone has successfully replicated these events is unknown to me, but it has the makings of a "good" theory. Not good as in I agree with it, but good as in, something that actually qualifies as a real theory.

The idea that aliens, godzilla, or satan caused the 9/11 collapse is not theory. It is conjecture. There is no mathematical series, or set of scientific facts, logical process, or repeatable, testable circumstance to attempt to put such claims to trial by real science. Does it mean that such things are outside the realm of possibility? No. Does it mean it couldn't have happened that way? No. Does it mean one cannot call such things theory? Yes. At least, not accurately so. Technically I could call an apple a cat, but it would not make it so.

Anyway, I hope that answers your question.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Thanks for that Libra, thats the kind of discussion that I'm looking for.

How then, do you think the various "theories" have spiralled into the various complex webs and confrontational states that they have?

And is there any way of reconcilling the differences between the factions, or is it like the protestant/catholic split of the churches, where never the twain shall meet again?


[edit on 14/1107/07 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Thanks for that Libra, thats the kind of discussion that I'm looking for.


Glad to be of help.



Originally posted by neformore
How then, do you think the various "theories" have spiralled into the various complex webs and confrontational states that they have?


Well, I think it's a combination of several factors working in tandem:

  • Semantics - We have all walks on ATS, from teens who've just started wondering about the truth of things, to professional engineers with PhDs and decades in their field, and everything in between. One end of the spectrum is going to play fast and loose with terminology, use the "wrong words" to describe what they really mean, and not really understand the concepts of the words they use correctly. The other end of the spectrum is going to expect the correct word to be used along with its correct meaning in the context. The frustration of one end is that the other is nit picking, and the other end is frustrated at the lack of conformity to standards of discussing a topic. This semantic difference causes a lot of arguments in threads, often between people who actually 100% agree with one another, but because of the wording, this goes unrealized.

  • Lack of Common Courtesy - I'm not going to say it's a generational thing, because arsehats come in all ages, but there's a fair number of people who lack common courtesy. They do not know how to disagree respectfully with others. A good friend of mine has this problem. He's a very intelligent person, and we discuss politics on a near daily basis. But if I disagree with him, regardless of how well I've supported my argument, regardless of how respectfully I've stated it, or how far I meet him halfway, he just automatically calls it BS and calls me an idiot. This has not only made rational debate between us impossible, it has on a number of occasions, caused us to go months without speaking to one another. And this is between friends, face to face. Among anonymous people meeting on a forum where no face to face contact happens, and anyone can be on the cover of Internet Tough Guy Magazine, the few who do regularly exhibit common courtesy and respectful discourse unfortunately appear to be the exception, rather than the rule.

  • Personal Agendas - Some people are out to make a buck off of 9/11, others are out for personal glory and followers, and some are out to make trouble. These personal agendas vary from one extreme to the other, and some may even have valid, understandable reasons for their agendas. The problem with an agenda is that it automatically places on in the position of only considering ideas that support their agenda. Alternate ideas, theories, etc, are immediately dismissed before one has even read the supporting arguments. Agendas keep the poster biased, and usually ignorant of the merits of any other viewpoint.

  • Emotional Backlash - Some people are still pretty broken up about 9/11. Maybe they lost friends, family, or other loved ones, maybe there are other reasons. Vengeance and closure are the two most powerful driving forces for an emotionally upset person. To get through the rough spot, most need to pick a villain and stick with it, and project all the hurt on to that spot until they can get their lives back in order. Thus, a suggestion that challenges this comfort zone might elicit a torrent of blacklash. For instance, if someone who lost his wife due to 9/11 has been blaming and hating Osama Bin Laden for it ever since, and someone suggests that it was actually aliens that did it, the widower might lash out at the person who suggested it.


    Certainly there are other factors involved, such as the occasional person who thinks they hang the moon, can never be wrong, or a completely closed mind, or a far too out there one, but in truth, it seems that the majority of divisiveness, bickering, and confrontations stem from those four things.



    Originally posted by neformore
    And is there any way of reconcilling the differences between the factions, or is it like the protestant/catholic split of the churches, where never the twain shall meet again?


    I think, honestly, that those who still care about the subject have got to be pretty passionate in their beliefs, otherwise they'd have found something else to occupy their time by now. Someone who is passionate in their belief isn't likely to change their mind, or to give "the other side" much more than negative thoughts. The resurgance of interest in 9/11 is usually due to people that are passionate about the subject, and those that garner the most hits and responses are typically the most extreme of these views. The dry, factual, solid argument type of response is unlikely to generate more than a few clicks by passerby whom then find nothing to argue about, or trolls, or agendists who will inevitably derail the thread into a tangent of their personal crusade.

    Maybe I'll get proven wrong, but I do take comfort in that, like religion, most people, individually, are somewhere in the middle. Maybe they subscribe to a certain belief system because there's strength in numbers and they like being able to sum up their ideas in a couple of bite-sized words, rather than long discourses. But deep on the inside, I think most people really don't know what to think, leave themselves open to the possibility of at least two or three most believable explanations, and sit on the sidelines while the much louder personalities hash out their personal battles against one another.

    [edit on 11/14/2007 by thelibra]



  • posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by thelibra
    In other words, a theory is something for which there is a scientific basis, a collection of testable standards to explain a phenomena that can be replicated and predicted using that theory. If the statement made is not testable, not provable, cannot elicit a prediction or a mathematical or logical relation to the same event being able to be replicated, it is not a theory, it is, at best, a hypothesis, and in most cases, mere musing or conjecture.


    I agree entirely, and that brings about a problem that is unique in itself to conspiracies, and to 9/11.

    Theres simply too much conjecture. The problem is that alot of it is put forward as "theory", which muddies the water.

    For instance, as I said above in my earlier post, I did the maths. I figured out the impact force of a 280,000lb pound plane hitting at 466mph. It came to approximately 8.5k tonnes of force. Thats a hell of a lot. The maths on how to work it out is not difficult to anyone with a decent education.

    Now I'm currently a civil engineer by profession. If I got some of my old text books out I could work out the tensile strengths of the towers support beams, the loadings and their failure points. In essence I could figure out if the plane could cause the damage we all witnessed. BUT, thats already been done by greater minds than myself. The simple maths I did put me on the road to conclude that a plane hit the tower and caused a hell of a lot of damage to it.

    And yet I still read today that people think the planes couldn't have caused the damage. All kinds of fanciful methods for the damage caused are put forward by such folks, and yet the (relatively) simple mathematics of the impact are ignored, and I cannot figure out why they would be.

    Which leads me deeper into the realms of 9/11 conspiracy. Because if the simple stuff is being ignored and re-imagined, I need to know why someone would want to do that, whats in their head and why on earth they don't seem to want to reconcile the basic physics of it all, and want to blame the impacts on explosives and holographic projections.



    Hence, the "Post-Impact Controlled Demolition Theory" is probably the closest thing I've seen so far to an honest-to-god "theory" on these 9/11 threads, in that the circumstances could technically be replicated with computer models, or real-life buildings, using known technology, to reproduce the same results. One can actually use math and known fact to logically deduce the cause of a building collapsing into its own footprint. Whether anyone has successfully replicated these events is unknown to me, but it has the makings of a "good" theory. Not good as in I agree with it, but good as in, something that actually qualifies as a real theory.


    Now that I can take on board. In some respects it makes sense. Maybe the buildings were pre-wired from Day 1 incase they became unstable and threatened to topple across the city. That would explain a whole lot. Again, thats conjecture on my part, but its looking deeper into how things happened.



    The idea that aliens, godzilla, or satan caused the 9/11 collapse is not theory. It is conjecture. There is no mathematical series, or set of scientific facts, logical process, or repeatable, testable circumstance to attempt to put such claims to trial by real science. Does it mean that such things are outside the realm of possibility? No. Does it mean it couldn't have happened that way? No. Does it mean one cannot call such things theory? Yes. At least, not accurately so. Technically I could call an apple a cat, but it would not make it so.

    Anyway, I hope that answers your question.


    It does. but it goes back to the nagging point, because if we can see its plainly conjecture, why are people accepting it as theory? Why is it being offered as "theory" when its no such thing? You mentioned denail, emotional angst etc, but are we looking at something stranger, because for all the time spent on the superficial arguments of conjecture, it possible other more pertinent stuff is being overlooked, and I'm wondering what the "sideshow" is for?

    (BTW, am enjoying this discussion Libra! - and thanks to the other guys who have contributed so far, all with valid viewpoints, and yes, Drzava, I agree - there should be alot more done for the families who lost people in the attacks if they are being neglected)



    posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:37 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by neformore
    And yet I still read today that people think the planes couldn't have caused the damage. All kinds of fanciful methods for the damage caused are put forward by such folks, and yet the (relatively) simple mathematics of the impact are ignored, and I cannot figure out why they would be.


    Ahhh, yes, well. My personal th--er---conjecture on this is that most people don't take a logical approach towards deciding what happened on 9/11. They base their idea of 9/11 on their personal belief system. If so inclined, you can see my full explanation of it in this post, but in a nutshell, people aren't going to assume anything about 9/11 that conflicts with their belief system, and most will probably be incapable of being convinced of anything outside their comfort zone.



    Originally posted by neformore
    Which leads me deeper into the realms of 9/11 conspiracy. Because if the simple stuff is being ignored and re-imagined, I need to know why someone would want to do that, whats in their head and why on earth they don't seem to want to reconcile the basic physics of it all, and want to blame the impacts on explosives and holographic projections.


    Well, most people's eyes glaze over when math starts getting used. Math makes it interesting only to the educated. The other problem is that basic physics lacks a certain je ne c'est quoi. Most people don't want the truth, they want a ripping good yarn about treachery, greed, and shady dealings in a world that operates above the law.

    If you dig out a stack of physics and engineering texts and sit someone down who has no interest in engineering or physics and try to explain mathematically why the towers fell, you are most likely going to lose their interest after the first formula comes out.

    If, however, you instead take the tactic of weaving them a tale about war profiteering, lives lost, with names, shocking photos, sound bytes, utube videos, and string it all together into a massive conspiracy that both outrages and shocks, well then you've got a rapt audience begging for more, and encouraged storytellers only too happy to oblige.



    Originally posted by neformore


    Hence, the "Post-Impact Controlled Demolition Theory" is probably the closest thing I've seen so far to an honest-to-god "theory" on these 9/11 threads...


    Now that I can take on board. In some respects it makes sense. Maybe the buildings were pre-wired from Day 1 incase they became unstable and threatened to topple across the city.


    Well, or an expert, well-organized demo team could probably do a decent job of it under pressure if they had to. It wouldn't have to be pre-wired, if your team were experienced enough, well-equipped, and knowledgable of the structural stress points.

    Honestly, if I were to find out tomorrow that the towers were demo'd, I wouldn't be surprised, nor would I be outraged. Collapsing a structurally unstable tower into its own footprint would have been a really tough call to make, but could potentially have prevented a much greater loss of life and collateral damage. If it looked like the twin towers were going to fall and take out even more buildings, and with every passing minute one waited, the chances for "skyscraper dominoes" would increase by x%, then I cannot honestly say I wouldn't have made the same call.

    If it had been hidden for this long, perhaps it would be because the thought that the "many" people in the surrounding buildings were only saved by sacrificing the "few" in the towers, would be too great of a national shame to bear in the public eye. Maybe it's one of those things we're just happier not knowing... that to save tens of thousands, we must sacrifice a few thousand... a gruesome thought, and one of those tough moral choices that everyone dreads.

    That is, however, pure speculation on my part. My own belief system doesn't really account for why 9/11 happened, but rather how deeply we as a nation have been betrayed since.


    Originally posted by neformore
    It does. but it goes back to the nagging point, because if we can see its plainly conjecture, why are people accepting it as theory? Why is it being offered as "theory" when its no such thing?


    To be honest, it's probably ignorance.

    Common parliance has bastardized the use of the word "theory". I've even used it myself the "Wrong" way many, many times. It wasn't till I saw a special on the whole "God v Darwin" court case, where "Intelligent Design" was put to test as to whether or not it was a theory, that I really began to think about the usage of the word. Before then, I used "theory" to describe any old conjecture, and I consider myself at least partially educated.



    Originally posted by neformore
    (BTW, am enjoying this discussion Libra!


    I am too. Unlike most of the 9/11 threads, this is one I feel I can actually get involved in the discussion on, because it's more about theory versus belief, as opposed to the minute details of how Tower X fell in Y fashion because of Z.



    posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:05 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by thelibra
    That is, however, pure speculation on my part. My own belief system doesn't really account for why 9/11 happened, but rather how deeply we as a nation have been betrayed since.


    I believe 911 happened for the simple reason that stuff like this has happened throughout the history of man-GREED AND POWER. I also agree with you libra that our nation has been deeply wounded and has become even more divided than it was prior to the 2000 presidential elections.(if thats possible)

    The divisions even here amongst the truth seekers is sometimes to much for me, and I'm a very patient person. But I feel time is running out. The next election is the most important one of our generation and there's no legitimate front runner as of yet. Will we as a nation rise to the challenge of wresting control back from the special interest groups who think they control everthing, or are we to complacent and content to be bothered by saving our country and the rest of the world for that matter?

    Somewhat off topic, my appologies nefomore.



    Unlike most of the 9/11 threads, this is one I feel I can actually get involved in the discussion on, because it's more about theory versus belief, as opposed to the minute details of how Tower X fell in Y fashion because of Z.


    Your description of a theory is as close as it gets in my opinion, Thankyou for the insight.

    InfinityO'reilly



    posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:47 PM
    link   
    Ok, I'm game! I like math and I have a decent education. Please, in a friendly exchange, answer a few questions for me. You see, I just can't wrap my head around them enough to find the answers.

    Here we go:

    1. Keeping in mind that an airplane crash is a very asymmetrical event, how can two (2) airplanes bring down three (3) buildings so symmetrically and so completely? (WTC 1, 2, and 7)

    2. Tell me how three (3) buildings can fall through the path of most resistance (through the middle core) at or near free fall speeds?

    3. Why does the US Govt continue to withhold all known evidence surrounding 9/11 under the guise of National Security?

    Thanks in advance!



    posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:54 AM
    link   
    infinityoreilly - Thanks for the post, I can't find anything to really comment on as I fully agree, except to also thank you for the compliment.



    Originally posted by sowada_s
    Ok, I'm game! I like math and I have a decent education. Please, in a friendly exchange, answer a few questions for me. You see, I just can't wrap my head around them enough to find the answers.


    Sowada, welcome to ATS, and congratulations on joining the discussion. Unfortunately this particular thread is not on specific theory, but rather what makes for a good theory. For specific answers to your questions, I'd recommend starting a new thread, or alternately, reading any of the hundreds of existing threads already addressing those same questions.

    If you're looking for a specific engineering, mathematically testable, provable scientific theory, as opposed to supposition or musing, I would be sure to include that in your initial post in the thread.



    posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:45 AM
    link   
    This reply is not exactly about 'Theory'

    it is however about 3 layers, or concentric rings from the intent of the topic,
    and might well have a hand in how a 'Theory' is inspired,







    Originally posted by thelibra

    My personal th--er---conjecture on this is that most people don't take a logical approach towards deciding what happened on 9/11.

    Well, most people's eyes glaze over when math starts getting used.

    Math makes it interesting only to the educated. (,,,)




    on the first glance at it might seem you are slamming the mathematically challenged among the population...

    but as i thought it over more, i searched 'right-brain left-brain, talents'
    on Google Search...

    thinking that right-brain domination showed up in people as mastery of mathematics, among other areas of logic & such...


    and contrasting the thoughts of left-brained people who excelled in things like art, photography, poetry and such...
    and the implication that whole demographic of left-brainers were
    somehow less educated because they were math challenged.


    but....
    i came across this from the American Psychological Association,
    here; www.apa.org...


    interesting that people (in this cases students) who were strong in all types of Math ...and others who had strengths in creative writing,
    had a strong indication they were neither right or left brained...
    they in fact had an increased & smooth flow of cross brain communication
    , moreso than others with a dominant side of the brain either right or left.



    in a very real way, individuals 'see' or construct their 'theories'
    working from their unique processors & the memory data experienced in their lifetimes,


    anyhow, put it together yourselves, (i think this is a part of the puzzle),
    i'm not eloquent or sensible enough to make a readable presentation
    about 'Theory',

    thanks



    posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:43 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by St Udio
    on the first glance at it might seem you are slamming the mathematically challenged among the population...


    Not so much, but I could definitely see where that impression was given. What I mean to say is that Joe Average doesn't want statistics, they want story.

    Allow me to quote a passage from "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman that I think explains it well:



    Without individuals we see only numbers: a thousand dead, a hundred thousand dead, "casualties may rise to a million." With individual stories, the statistics become people--but even that is a lie, for the people continue to suffer in numbers that themselves are numbing and meaningless. Look, see the child's swollen, swollen belly, and the flies that crawl at the corners of his eyes, his skeletal limbs: will it make it easier for you to know his name? his age, his dreams, his fears? To see him from the inside? And if it does, are we not doing a disservice to his sister, who lies in the searing fust beside him, a distorted, distended caricature of a human child? And there, if we feel for them, are they now more important than a thousand other children touched by the same famine, a thousand other young lives who will soon be food for the flies' own myriad squirming children?

    We draw our lines around these moments of pain, and remain upon our islands, and they cannot hurt us. They are covered with a smooth, safe, nacreous layer to let them slip, pearlike, from our souls without real pain.



    There are two ways to look at 9/11.

    There is the human interest viewpoint: "...the bravest of the firefighters would not escape to the safety of the street. John Smith, a community leader, father of three, after already saving hundreds of lives, returned up that steps to climb another seventy stories, to try and save thousands. Thanks to his sacrifice, hundreds of lives will forever remember him, but because of his sacrifice, three orphaned faces will forever mourn him."

    And there is the cold equation viewpoint: "...at approximately 9:59am, the south tower collapsed, and the north tower collapsed at 10:28am. In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,974 confirmed people died as an immediate result of the attacks, including rescue workers."

    When people want to be interested by an event, they want names, descriptions, tales of good and evil, joy and sadness, virtue and sin. Too many numbers get in the way of appreciating the story.

    When people want to investigate an event, they want facts: distances, weights, timelines, ledgers, etc. Too much emotion gets ends up influencing the way facts are interpreted and considered.

    I hope that clarifies my position a bit. I wasn't so much bashing the non-mathematically inclined as I was trying to draw a line between the differences in how people create and/or read "theories" on 9/11.



    posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:40 AM
    link   
    Hi again fellow contributors
    Couldn't get time to carry on yesterday but I'm here now!

    So, Libra, the point you've raised about human interest got my attention.

    I don't want to bog the thread down in international politics, because as you stated earlier its more about the circumstances behind the theory, and the psychology of it all rather than the specifics.

    Do you think then that specific forms of conjecture are, in actual fact, denial, based on a need to blame the events of the day on something, anything, other than the fact that human beings are capable of such atrocities, possibly because the USA had - to that point in time and, thinking about, it since - never experienced such a thing on its home soil?

    I live in the UK and the majority of my formative years were affected by the actions of the IRA. Bombing in cities and terrorism was a commonplace
    thing. Whilst I saw 9/11 as a horrible tradgedy and a waste of human life, to me the only difference between what I saw and what I'd been experiencing up until that point was the fact that what happened did so in a much more "Hollywood" manner and the immediate death toll from the attack was much higher. But I'd been evacuated out of Manchester centre when the IRA had bombed it and I'd seen the devastation caused by the bomb. My parents had memories of being in bomb shelters in WW2, and had often recounted tales of when my home towns railway works were bombed. In essence, we were used to what we saw.

    To Americans who never experienced being bombed in WW2 on the mainland (apart from the very minor Japanese submarine aircraft carrier-launched raids), and who, in most part, lived the a cocoon of Americana in relative total safety and who were - I'm sorry to say it - out of touch with alot of what actually went on in the world in real terms (thats not a bad thing by the way, and not a criticism - the US is huge, covers most climate types and is, in essence a mini-world of its own) the affect of a full on attack from an outside source must have been absolutely terrifying - akin to when the Nazi's arrived over London.

    So the next question is this - are we looking at some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to the wilder 9/11 theories? Is that how they've come into being?



    posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:23 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by neformore
    So the next question is this - are we looking at some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to the wilder 9/11 theories? Is that how they've come into being?


    You could be on to something there, I personally think the real problem with 911 was the coverup afterward. More money was spent investigating William Clinton getting his willy sucked than on the crime of the century(so far anyway). Why the coverup? Well the answer to your last question comes out of that angst.

    We know we've been lied to, but we don't know what the lie is. So some with wild imaginations and knowledge of secret military operations/equipment try to fill in the blanks. The more outlandish the more divisionary and hence the most talked about.

    911 has been used by politicians and propagandists(main stream media) to justify all sorts or foreign and domestic policy changes that are detrimental to the average person but highly beneficial to the very powerful amongst us.

    When we can come together as a planet and face the challeges of being without getting bogged down by petty selfishness, religion and greed, future generations will look back at this time and be thankful.

    Infinityoreilly



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0

    log in

    join