South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

September 23, 2017, 23:47:55 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

September 11th

 (Read 3563 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Henk
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« on: October 12, 2014, 08:08:56 AM »

Yes, I know. It's been pretty much done to death on the interwebs. With the moon landings, September 11th being an iside job is the go-to topic for tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjobs. I've never given the story much thought, but I saw a documentary on YouTube (yeah, I know, NOT authorative) that raises a couple of big questions that the US government never answered in the official WTC commission.

For instance, there is zero evidence of an airplane flying into the Pentagon. Sounds wild, but really - the damage caused to the Pentagon facade simply doesn't fit the profile of the airplane in question. The plane is BIGGER than the damage on the building's facade. And the FBI confiscated the footage from every single security camera that could've captured the plane. There's something like 80 cameras that covered the flight path and had good views of the impact site, but all the footage were confiscated and have since disappeared.

And then the clincher - WTC7. The third building to fall that day was about the height of the Carlton Centre in Jo'burg. In excess of 50 stories, with zero structural damage. It's the first steel-frame building in the history of human building to spontaneously collapse on its own footprint.

Since 2001 the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have been coming thick and fast. With the US government's only response to either ignore the allegations, not coming with explanations (the 9/11 Comission simply ignored WTC7 coming down) or demonising the doubters as 'conspiracy theorists' without addressing any of their concerns.

Why?

What do you think?

Here's my personal opinion:

I believe that after the end of the Cold War, with all the associated budget cuts for the military industrial complex, the US had to invent a new enemy to keep the contracts flowing. And what better enemy than an idea, a philosophy? If we wage 'War on Terror', then we can keep on selling military crap to the government to the end of time, because 'terrorism' is an enemy that will simply never go away. Not like the USSR, that one day decided its had enough and is quitting. And seeing how the newly invented Department of Homeland Security got kitted out to be a proper paramilitary force with billions of dollars' worth of military equipment ranging from armored personel carriers to body armour for crown control, the money is flowing nicely.

What do you think? Do you think it was an inside job? Why? And if it was an inside job, where does that leave us? Are we really living in a world where the supposed 'protector' of liberty and freedom, the torchbearer of democracy, stoops to such lows? And if that IS the world we live in, what can be done about it?

I do apologise if you guys are gatvol of the whole 9/11 topic. But it really is worrisome. 
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2014, 11:53:24 AM »

The 911 conspiracy theory has been debunked so extensively on numerous websites, that it appears rather futile to repeat it yet again.  Video footage of the Pentagon crash can be viewed here and substantial damage to WTC7 can be seen here.  Steel structures are in fact much more vulnerable to fire than the reinforced concrete structures we are used to in South Africa.

I think the onus of proof has shifted firmly onto the conspiracists and that they now need to come up with a viable, comprehensive explanation of how the alleged conspiracy could have been pulled off.  Trying to poke holes into official investigations does not suffice.  If they claim that the planes did not crash into the buildings, they must explain what happened to those planes that took off and never landed, including the passengers and staff who boarded those flights.  If there were planes involved, how did they convince the pilots to commit suicide?  Once one starts connecting the dots, the conspiracy theory invariably collapses.


  
Logged
Henk
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2014, 12:40:44 PM »

I do agree, the story's been done to death on the web. But what irks me, is that the official story is dished up with the caveat that the onus now lies on the 'conspiracy theorists' to come up with evidence to disprove the official version.

Of course, without coming up with any evidence at all to support either the official version, or in explaining anomalies as put forward in the official story.

The video footage you referred to regarding the plane flying into the Pentagon is the only video clip that was released by the FBI. And, in that particularly santitary version, NO AIRPLANE is visible. You see the building's facade, and the next moment, an explosion. And, mind you, an explosion emanating from a central point. Not from a broad front, where fuel tanks would ignite from wing to wing. No, a single blast from a single point. Much like a missile would. Maybe one of the other 79 confiscated, sealed security tapes might show something more. Why is it not made available? 

As well, the official story about the World Trade Centre also does not add up. If I ask how it is possible that molten steel is still found weeks after the collapse, I'm told that the jet fuel on board did it. Without those toeing the official line explaining to me how it is possible for jet fuel to burn hotter than the melting point of steel (it doesn't), or why thermite residue is found on the support structures (it shouldn't be there).

Make no mistake, I do think most people seeing a conspiracy in the whole mess are a bit whacked. But the official story simply doesn't add up. And being the good skeptic that I am, I am open to both sides of the story. But labelling any doubt cast on the official version in a knee-jerk fashion as 'conspiracy theorist' crap is not right. Does it validate the official version if I can't tell you what happened to the flight that supposedly flew into the Pentagon? That's not cricket. It's like me telling you the dog ate my homework, and until you can show me an alternative location for my homework, my story simply must be true. It doesn't gel, yet it seems to me the demonisation and caricaturisation of the 9/11 truthers is about the only weight the US government's side of the story has.

Case in point - the fuel on board purportedly burnt hot enough to melt steel. Yet, they found Mohammed Atta's passport in mint condition in the rubble? Do you actually believe that? How can that not smack of a plant-job?

The whole thing stinks.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2014, 15:42:01 PM »

The first link I provided in fact includes two videos of the Pentagon incident.  The plane is visible on the second one.  I would be very surprised if there were eighty cameras trained on the impact spot.  Anywhere else, the videos would merely show a flying plane.

When steel is heated, it becomes pliable.  That is what blacksmiths do: they don't melt steel, they heat it and then bend or hammer it into shape.  Steel also expands when heated, causing structures to buckle.  The WTC buildings would have collapsed long before the steel reached melting point.

The terms "conspiracy theory" do not necessarily imply a falsehood.

I can come up with hundreds of things that you might have done with your homework, the most likely being that you never did it, which are more credible than the dog eating it.  By and large the official version of events around 911 do add up in a much more plausible way than any competing hypothesis I can dream up.

I repeat that the onus is now on the conspiracists to come up with a viable and comprehensive alternative theory.  The principle involved here is Inference to the Best Explanation.  It's cricket.   
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1557



« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2014, 04:57:51 AM »

I repeat that the onus is now on the conspiracists to come up with a viable and comprehensive alternative theory.

And this is one problem I have with conspiracy theories: they aren't theories. They do not actually have any viable, testable model of what happened. Like creationism, it all consists of attempts to poke holes in the official version. There may well be holes in the official version, and there may well be things the government is keeping secret (governments are notoriously obsessed with secrecy for its own sake) but that still does not support the conspiracy version.

Another problem I have with conspiracy theories is simply that they require implausibly large secrets to be kept. Large scale plans never work out as planned, even when they are out in the open for all to see. Why would it go so smoothly with completely secret plans? 

Question: Suppose the WTC buildings had not collapsed. Would the incident still serve as plausible reason for Bush and pals to invade Iraq and turn America into a police state? I would think going to all the trouble to plant explosives etc. would be completely unnecessary, especially considering what a huge secret already needed to be kept.

But frankly, as little as I think of Bush, I don't think he is quite that evil, that he would murder 3000 of his fellow Americans for any reason.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: skeptic


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.284 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page August 09, 2017, 07:16:31 AM
Privacy Policy