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.

 

Conspiracy Theories

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I am in the minority over here.

With that said, it is my desire to see if I can logically refute any conspiracy theory that can be thrown at me about what happened on 9/11. I believe that on a general sense, what we were told is true. Muslim extremists hijacked commercial aircraft due to their misguided view of the Jihad (holy war.) Two crashed into the Twins, one into the pentagon, and one in Pennsylvania.

Normally I wouldn't do what I'm doing now on a "conspiracy theory forum" because conspiracy theorists tend to use ad hominem in a horrible attempt to be right. Reading the sticky threads, I see that this is not a typical conspiracy forum where people are just allowed to insult willy nilly. This means that I am not wasting my time over here.

I'll start off by proving that some of the general conspiracy theories are untrue. I can do this with one simple link.

www.popularmechanics.com...

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

Discuss.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Indian point. A site that has 3 nuclear power plants, two of which are still active. All together they have over 65 operating years worth of nuclear waste. This site is supposed to be the USA's number one terrorist target.

Why did flight 11 pass over it?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Cuz the "cavemen" are smarter than the typical TM'er.

They knew that nuclear reactor vessels have been designed to repel such attacks.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
I'll start off by proving that some of the general conspiracy theories are untrue. I can do this with one simple link.

www.popularmechanics.com...


Yeah, that's quite the "proof" you've got -- Popular Mechanics and their "senior researcher" Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of former DHS chief Michael Chertoff.

1) Not to piss on a newbie's Wheaties, but do you have any idea who owns Popular Mechanics?

2) Have you ever heard the phrase "yellow journalism?" Do you know which publisher the phrase was originally coined for and why?

3) Before you start "proving" the 9/11 official story and arrogantly challenging all comers, perhaps you should brush up on some U.S. history (like the Spanish-American War), or better yet, Operation Northwoods.

4) It also wouldn't hurt to learn some basic facts about the neocon chickenhawks and their "New Pearl Harbor", aka the 9/11 Reichstag Fire.




[edit on 10-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Understand that I am trying not to be arrogant. If I come across that way I apologize.

Yes, I know about the U.S.S. Maine and Operation Northwoods. Northwoods seems to come up a lot when talking about 9/11, but that doesn't prove 9/11 was premeditated by the government. What it does is tip the balance towards 9/11 being premeditated, but there should not be a definitive conclusion drawn due to possible hidden evidence or the lack of evidence.

Now as far as Popular Mechanics validity, yes I know who owns it. That is why I put the statement that over 70 professionals in the fields helped debunk the most common theories in bold text.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by MrRandomGuy]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by MrRandomGuy]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


well put....gotta love ATS



to the OP

You can logically refute anything....if you convince yourself. Its like...whether you think you can or you can't; you are right. You can convince yourself of anything you choose. Sometimes it can be worse when you are privy to more information than most others, but you have to admit

If you and your trillionaire buddies wanted to take control of the money supply and hold our government hostage and use it as a proxy your own profit wouldn't it be in yalls best interest to pay people(remember your a trillionaire) to prove that conspiracy theories don't exist? Logically



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
No, the USS Maine/Spanish-American War and Operation Northwoods don't prove anything per se.

But when you add Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, TWA 800, Waco, Oklahoma City and Iraq, etc., a distinct pattern begins to emerge.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iiinvision
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


well put....gotta love ATS


Yes I am enjoying this site more than I thought I would. I am relieved to be in the presence of conspiracy theorists who deviate from the norm (norm being that they use ad hominem and who wildly make claims out of nowhere with little or no evidence.)

So, you're right. You can't logically refute anything by logic alone. Evidence is needed along with logic to come closer to a conclusion.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Don't forget Agent Orange, the USS Liberty, known radiation effects of nuke testing, the Iraq war, torture, spying on US citizens, CIA operations teaching death squads, 'free speech zones', the yellow fringed flag courts, black box voting, arresting people for T shirts. And what happened to the Operation Northwoods traitors? Not a damn thing. Our government hid it under top secret for 45 years.

Yep, no way the scumbags running this government would kill 3k americans to start a war.

DrEd



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
No, the USS Maine/Spanish-American War and Operation Northwoods don't prove anything per se.

But when you add Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, TWA 800, Waco, Oklahoma City and Iraq, etc., a distinct pattern begins to emerge.


Yes, Pearl Harbor is possible. Lusitania, Tonkin, and Liberty I am not familiar with. TWA surprised me at first until I thought about them blaming the Russians for it, you'll have to be more specific about Waco (a lot of things are wrong with that town) Oklahoma City I know about but wasn't aware of a conspiracy, and Iraq is a somewhat counterproductive argument. If they couldn't plant WMD's in Iraq effectively to prove that Iraq had them at the time we invaded, then how could they construct an elaborate plot like 9/11? This of course is not the same as knowing about it, which is very possible that someone in the U.S. government in some form knew enough information about that day.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrRandomGuy
 



Have you learned anything of value from this forum MrRandomGuy?

Do you not appreciate the independent investigative teams working on exposing government fraud?


Does the death of whistleblowers and witnesses to government corruption ease your mind?


Would you support another 9/11 investigation void of conflicts of interest?


If I told you a story that had no beginning and no end, would you tell me how good of a story teller I was?






posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrRandomGuy
 

Except you probably don't deviate too much from the debunker norm, e.g:

Mind already made up; dismisses any evidence that doesn't fit pre-conceived notions; stereotypes anyone who knows something is very wrong with official 9/11 story and questions government "experts", fervently believes there's "no evidence", but only visits sites like Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and Debunking 9/11 Myths.

Manufactures excuses and justifications for just about anything, no matter how ridiculous and implausible.

Crazy-ass scenarios like Larry "Pull It" Silverstein issuing FDNY commands while at home watching TV. Sure, why not?

Believing that a 700 degree F. aviation fuel fire can melt or weaken massive columns of structural steel? Of course.

Imagining that a building which suffered only minor damage can defy the laws of physics by collapsing on it's footprint at free-fall speeds? Without a doubt.

Dismissing numerous eyewitness accounts of "secondary explosions" and "secondary (explosive) devices" by police, firefighters, rescue workers, WTC employees and journalists?



Well, that one's harder, but I'm sure Popular Mechanics has an answer!


You haven't heard about Gulf of Tonkin, TWA 800 or Oklahoma City?

Gulf of Tonkin: total fiction, no attack by N. Vietnam, LBJ quoted on NSA archive records as saying, "those Navy boys were shooting at a bunch of flying fish!"

TWA 800: blamed on exploding 747 center fuel tank but no ignition source ever found and no 747 fuel tank problems before or since, hundreds of witnesses off East Coast watched a missile rise up from Atlantic and impact plane, high explosives chemicals found on rows of passenger seats, stained red, CIA "simulation" claims witnesses saw plane in steep climb after fuselage separation.

Oklahoma City: military explosives experts maintain diesel fuel/fertilizer bomb not powerful enough to cause extensive damage, every media organization reported two additional "highly sophisticated secondary devices" found in Edward P. Murrah federal building, every U.S. military and law enforcement organization in nation states "secondary devices removed from building" in their summary and incident reports.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy

Originally posted by iiinvision
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


well put....gotta love ATS


Yes I am enjoying this site more than I thought I would. I am relieved to be in the presence of conspiracy theorists who deviate from the norm (norm being that they use ad hominem and who wildly make claims out of nowhere with little or no evidence.)

So, you're right. You can't logically refute anything by logic alone. Evidence is needed along with logic to come closer to a conclusion.


Popular mechanics got their fingers burnt long time ago, and have since been
considered a total irrelevance.

They have mainly been 'forgotten' by now.

In order for your thread to continue, I suggest you present to us what you consider
'evidence' for your cause, and thereby could show us what your understanding of
'logic' would be.

Then we could present a contrary argument.

This then, could probably develop into quite an interesting exchange about the true
meaning of the word "logic". (Not to mention 'reason' and 'common sense')!

Hope you'll participate!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrRandomGuy
 


What caused the top of WTC2 to tilt, and then lose it's angular momentum, when the undamaged lower building section collapsed from underneath it?

Please no fire or aircraft damage, only the top section, that was tilting, had fires and aircraft damage. What took away the resistance on that lower section that allowed the complete collapse of itself? How did that bottom section fall so fast it caused the top to fall faster than it was tilting, hence the loss of its angular momentum?

This is not conspiracy theory this is physical facts. NIST failed to answer this question, preferring to have us believe global collapse was inevitable, so can you answer this one?

I highly doubt it, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy

I'll start off by proving that some of the general conspiracy theories are untrue. I can do this with one simple link.

www.popularmechanics.com...

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

Discuss.






End Thread.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Doomsday 2029]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Check out the first paragraph in this article. PopMech They don't even suggest that the government had a hand in the first WTC bombing...

"A lone madman ...." is what they say.


I think this would give a person to doubt that PopMech is thinking without their little government sponsored hat on.... Link

You can't believe a rag that will not talk against the government... Popular? Maybe, but is it correct? No way...

This rag caters to people who have beliefs, not someone who uses science and reasoning....




[edit on 11-2-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Cuz the "cavemen" are smarter than the typical TM'er.

They knew that nuclear reactor vessels have been designed to repel such attacks.



Thats funny, the WTC's were built to withstand "multiple airplane collisions."



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

There are literally hundreds of professionals that would beg to differ including architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, firefighters, lawyers, judges, pilots and other aviation professionals, military, intelligence and government officials.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The reason they call their mags popular mechanic and popular science is because their thinking is the POPULAR thinking. I don't find the MSM or other science rags speaking about conspiracy theorists in a positive light. They actual call all conspiracy theorists loons or crazy.

People will generally follow the crowd that will NOT be classed as loons or crazy... therefore these popular magazines only portray what people are willing to think out in the open. That's why people will usually try to hide their identities on the ATS site....

Sounds like your source is out the window. I wouldn't trust much of what they say within the pages... Propaganda...

IMO
Rgds



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


That's fair, and it's the reason why I am still here. I was the typical debunker, but now after watching that video I am open to other possibilities.

With the secondary explosions exists a possible premeditated demolition (pull it.) The problem with this one though is that if the plane had hit where the explosives were "planted" then the resulting fire would have ignited all the explosives and the tower would have just come down. So if enough explosives were planted to knock the building down, we still have the problem of the airplane being the catalyst of the explosions and thus knocking the tower down prematurely.

Now if the building was pre-wired, it would have taken a significant amount of time and resources to do so. The WTC would have to be closed for a significant period of time and the people who wired the building would have to be paid off. But buying a person has a limit. Question. If the government couldn't stop a disgruntled worker from whistle blowing about warrantless wiretapping, how can they stop technical teams of people who (if the pull it thing is true) pre-wired the WTC to explode?

reply to post by ANOK
 


You're right, I can't answer that. I can make a hypothesis of what happened, but the hypothesis would be based off of the Popular Mechanics source (which I am now questioning because of that UFO issue.) Until I find a better source, the best thing I can say is "I don't know."




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join