Orgy Of Conspiracy Theories...

It's probably been asked before, but what's up with this influx of strangeness regarding the explanation of 9/11? I can understand how the concept of explosives first began, I think most of us here can, whether you believe explosives were used or not.

But paramount to considering the use of explosives is the fact that it looked that way. The manner in which the buildings collapsed, the jets of debris during the collapse, the numerous reports of multiple explosions, the mass of strangeness in the official reports and releases, and so on. (I don't want to debate these particular items here, just noting them as part of the strangeness surrounding that day).

The question of demolitions was born due to these things, and at that point truthers began researching and for themselves to find if indeed explosives were used. There is nothing wrong with this, but lately the scientific method seems to have changed.

Rather than saying "what's wrong with this picture", and finding answers, people seem to be saying "let's see, could ____ work?" and finding a way to make it work.

This, imho, is not the way the truth movement should operate. This makes it more of a "what if" movement than anything else. Thinking up a pet theory and inventing a way to make it work (i.e. having it rely on unconfirmed, unknown, or just plain unlikely technology; claiming to have a source which can never be verified; ignoring contradictory factual data even when it's been presented repeatedly, etc.), casts all of the hard work and noble research done by many people (and reviewed by many more) into an extremely bad light.

I know ATS is all about free discussion amongst peers in the pursuit of knowledge, which is pretty cool, keeps me stuck here more than I should be probably. But in regards to 9/11/01, I still wonder how and why so many are intent on jumping aboard the out-there express and proving everyone else wrong, including both official and private experts. Often, insensitive humour regarding the events accompany such things, and I find it kind of gross that so many make a game out of it.

This is serious stuff, and the factual (not open to debate) data that has been uncovered by truthers, declassified by official sources, or discovered by other means have serious ramifications towards key personnel and the events surrounding 9/11/01. I think it would be wise for people to remember this before dreaming up a scenario and finding ways to make it work.

/rant

EDITED in the interest of fairness.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Astygia]

Nothing against your concerns, but I have a comment on this:

Originally posted by Astygia
Rather than saying "what's wrong with this picture", and finding answers, people seem to be saying "let's see, could a nuke work?" and finding a way to make it work.

Didn't work that way for me. I found a picture of molten steel in front of 90 West Building a while back, and by molten I mean extremely heated (not melted), and it was still rigid (still had rigid, definitive edges), even though glowing yellow-hot. That's not something thermite can really do, and I know high explosives of any sort aren't going to do that. Alright, so I left that there.

Then I remembered that there were cars up and down Ground Zero that were ruined, blackened, burned out, melted, at least one was flipped onto its roof, etc., and some survivors reported hot dust clouds. The clouds certainly expanded as if they had some energy about them. And then finally, I noticed (after it had already been pointed out to me, and I just didn't get the significance) that steel flying outwards from the Towers were trailing thick vapor, like concrete dust, except there was no concrete on the items, or shouldn't have been, like perimeter column sections, and relatively small pieces. If this is sublimated material, as it seems to me, then we're obviously out of the world of thermite and C4 automatically.


Those are just my thoughts, and I'm only entertaining them. Any other explanations for those events are welcome, but all I've come across so far has been people simply agreeing or else people that just have their jaws open. Hasn't helped much.


But otherwise, totally agree with your post. The no-planes stuff works backwards logically, in my opinion anyway, not like there'd be any way you could prove a negative anyway. And there were jetliner parts. But anyway, my 2 cents. Appreciated your post.

True enough, change that particular quote to "could _____ work?" for fairness.