The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

[PeterJB]

My question was slightly rhetorical/sarcastic but wow there actually are.

 

[Dotini]

Physicists, architects and structural engineers say the 9/11 building collapses were impossible.

We have a handful of folks trained in physics here at GTP. Who do you throw under the bus, Shyam Sundar or the laws of physics?

 

[Famine]

For accuracy, that should read: 'Carefully selected

physicists, architects and structural engineers say the 9/11 building collapses were impossible.

'

... as is the case with any conspiracy theory where people desperately want to believe it.

 

[Scaff]

Physicists, architects and structural engineers say .........

What all of them?

...... the 9/11 building collapses were impossible.

So they didn't collapse then! Who's hiding them?

The collapses were possible, we know this because they collapsed. To say they were impossible is absurdity to the highest degree.

 

[Liquid]

the 9/11 building collapses were impossible.

I don't understand the use of language. Saying it is "impossible" without qualification is absurd. It implies that it never happened. The building collapses happened. I would estimate that 95% of anyone reading this thread watched the second tower be hit. Even I did, and I was 10 years old and in my Year 6 class in school when it happened.

How it happened is what these people are talking about.

This oversensationalised use of language like "9/11 was impossible" is precisely why these conspiracy hypothesisers remain on the fringe. It's a small point, arguing the semantics of a sentence but it really, really does matter. It's annoying.

 

[Dotini]

Sometimes, for political or emotional reasons, I prefer to believe a lie over an ugly truth. But not in this case. If others wish to do so, it's not for me to object.

I notice everyone chimed in without viewing the video (which would have answered your questions had you viewed it). So suppose further discussion is ruled out. Okay, fine.

Edit: The NIST report was not peer reviewed. So its not science. It's politics, i.e., conspiracy theory.

 

[TVR27]

Conspiracy: Comes from Latin word 'conspirare' meaning to breathe together; conspiracy theories emphasize the invisible forces and actions (of selfish harmful intent by special interests) behind the visible historical events.

 

[Scaff]

Sometimes, for political or emotional reasons, I prefer to believe a lie over an ugly truth. But not in this case. If others wish to do so, it's not for me to object.

I notice everyone chimed in without viewing the video (which would have answered your questions had you viewed it). So suppose further discussion is ruled out. Okay, fine.

Edit: The NIST report was not peer reviewed. So its not science. It's politics, i.e., conspiracy theory.

Again you are making assumptions.

Oh and yes the NIST was opened to independent review, it states as much within it.

However your YouTube videos have also not been subject to peer review, so politics right back at you.

 

[Famine]

I notice everyone chimed in without viewing the video

No you don't, as you do not have access to anyone else's internet history.

On the other hand, I notice that you posted a YouTube video in place of any actual evidence.

You're just trolling at this point.

 

[Dotini]

so politics right back at you.

The ugly truth of 9/11 is that some lies were required as a justification (for war against Muslims ongoing today?). I would agree with you that this is preferred because the majority wish it to be so (a tautology?). I lack the ability or the desire to change history. I'm merely along for the ride.

 

[Scaff]

The ugly truth of 9/11 is that some lies were required as a justification (for war against Muslims ongoing today?). I would agree with you that this is preferred because the majority wish it to be so (a tautology?). I lack the ability or the desire to change history. I'm merely along for the ride.

Are you actually going to post anything that remotely looks like evidence to support your claim or just continue with the passive aggressive nonsense?

I ask because right now you dangerously close to the wrong side of the AUP.

 

[Dotini]

I think you will acknowledge that some physicists, scientists and engineers think that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, a conspiracy, and rational to ask questions and hold discussions in those terms.

So it should be acceptable to discuss those same aspects 9/11 in a thread devoted to conspiracies, shouldn't it??

 

[Scaff]

I think you will acknowledge that some physicists, scientists and engineers think that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, a conspiracy, and rational to ask questions and hold discussions in those terms.

So it should be acceptable to discuss those same aspects 9/11 in a thread devoted to conspiracies, shouldn't it??

Your not discussing it.

All I have seen is assumptions that its true from yourself, not evidence to support it and insults to anyone who disagrees.

That's not discussion.

 

[Dotini]

Your not discussing it.

All I have seen is assumptions that its true from yourself, not evidence to support it and insults to anyone who disagrees.

That's not discussion.

Well. I've posted high quality videos of physicists and engineers discussing the evidence. I've tried to give my take on it that even if it was a conspiracy it (the conspiracy to cover up) was justified.

And if I have insulted anyone, I'm sorry. Normally, I try to be polite and respectfully, I think most would acknowledge.

And if the foregoing is not sufficent, I guess I will simply have to stop mentioning it and move on, because I don't know what else it would take to make you happy.

 

[Scaff]

Well. I've posted high quality videos of physicists and engineers discussing the evidence. I've tried to give my take on it that even if it was a conspiracy it was justified.

And if I have insulted anyone, I'm sorry. Normally, I try to be polite and respectfully, I think most would acknowledge.

And if the foregoing is not sufficent, I guess I will simply have to stop mentioning it and move on, because I don't know what else it would take to make you happy.

The videos are not high quality and the contents of them have been widely shown to be incorrect and inaccurate many times over.

Do you have anything that comes close to the depth and detail that the NIST reports provides? As I've not seen anything of that nature.

 

[Dotini]

The videos are not high quality and the contents of them have been widely shown to be incorrect and inaccurate many times over.

Do you have anything that comes close to the depth and detail that the NIST reports provides? As I've not seen anything of that nature.

I have a critique of the NIST report (in the video posted) by a rational person and organization who have read all 20,000 pages of it. You say that all the science and engineering presented by the critics is wrong. Who am I or they to argue with you, you who own and run this forum? I am certainly nobody, and if the science and engineering presented in the video is wrong by your lights and is unacceptable to post, then I am wrong to continue posting on this subject because it will achieve nothing positive.

 

[Famine]

Physicists, architects and structural engineers say the 9/11 building collapses were impossible.

I think you will acknowledge that some physicists, scientists and engineers think that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, a conspiracy, and rational to ask questions and hold discussions in those terms.

These are two entirely different statements. You know this. Stop trolling.

 

[Scaff]

I have a critique of the NIST report (in the video posted) by a rational person and organization who have read all 20,000 pages of it. You say that all the science and engineering presented by the critics is wrong. Who am I or they to argue with you, you who own and run this forum? I am certainly nobody, and if the science and engineering presented in the video is wrong by your lights and is unacceptable to post, then I am wrong to continue posting on this subject because it will achieve nothing positive.

Not what I said and not what I asked for.

Have they put the rebutal of the NIST reports in print, with all supporting data to allow it to be reviewed and analysed?

 

[Dotini]

@Scaff @Famine
I will have nothing further to say on this subject.

 

[x3ra]

I do. Especially since no-one disagreed with my last post.

How did 47 core columns all fail at the same time?

And don't look for answers in the NIST report, because it doesn't deal with the collapse.

Evidence please.

 

[Scaff]

I do. Especially since no-one disagreed with my last post.

How did 47 core columns all fail at the same time?

And don't look for answers in the NIST report, because it doesn't deal with the collapse.

Evidence please.

You demand evidence yet have repeatedly failed, across numerous topics, to provide any yourself.

And yes the NIST report does deal with the collapse and no they didn't all fail at the exact same time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And don't look for answers in the NIST report, because it doesn't deal with the collapse.

I've read the reports in their entirety. That's not a necessary qualification in realising a blindingly obvious fact... of course it deals with the collapse.

 

[x3ra]

You must mean this then. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2.

What does the word probable mean? Thought you were scientists.

Maybe you can answer an easy one. Did the centre fail first or the outside?

 

[Famine]

Probable Collapse Sequence

Reading isn't that hard...

 

[Scaff]

You must mean this then. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2.

So it does cover the collapse then. Glad to see you acknowledge you were incorrect.

What does the word probable mean? Thought you were scientists.

If you understood the first thing about science you would understand exactly how inane that sounds.

Maybe you can answer an easy one. Did the centre fail first or the outside?

A part of the centre around column 79 failed first, then column 79 failed which resulted in a cascade failure of the rest of the internal and external structure.

That is the most probable sequence of events based on all available evidence and supported by repeated and numerous models.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

From the Guardian newspaper.

Do you disagree with this?

I disagree with your missleading quote mining.

The obstructions were quite clearly said to relate to people wanting to appear to have acted too slowly or been ineffective; not as you are suggesting as part of a wider conspiracy to hide the 'truth' (and given your posting history the inference behind that is clear).

Not a single bit of the linked sources even suggests that a different perpetrator is responsible, which makes you post missleading and in my opinion deliberately so.

 

[x3ra]

First of all I object to your subtext.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

at the very least must raise at least a smattering of a red flag or don't you trust the members of NIST?

Your opinion that I have posted something misleading deliberately, is an insult, as I would never do that(it also answers a question you posed many months ago).

A different perpetrator responsible you say. Since the commission was never set-up to find a perpetrator, then I would find unlikely that they would find anyone responsible.

Is the 9/11 report a statement of true facts, supposition or political document rather than scientific, that the nub and requires that we should look at other points of view, and NOT accept it as fact, unless of course you agree with it and don't want dissenting arguments.

You say

A part of the centre around column 79 failed first, then column 79 failed which resulted in a cascade failure of the rest of the internal and external structure.

Hmm a cascade failure. That means that one part of a system failed and as such this led to a reduction the the integrity of the structure causing other failures which then subsequently exaggerated the destruction causing it to collapse. Yes?

 

[TenEightyOne]

First of all I object to your subtext. at the very least must raise at least a smattering of a red flag or don't you trust the members of NIST?

What seems almost beyond question now is that the air defence systems weren't prepared and those that were failed. That allowed the aircraft in to their "targets"... and it's not until then that the story of the collapse starts. I don't see how the air defence is relevant, that's an issue for a different "conspiracy".

 

[Mike_grpA]

Just a short post from me here, because I've dealt with this kind of nonsense way too many times before, and tend to take a "let them have their fairytale-like stories" approach these days. People who believe this kind of nonsense, tend to be easily led to it because of their personal world view. They never accept evidence against their beliefs, and will blindly accept the most flimsy attempts at evidence that agrees with their pre-conceived conclusions.

So with that in mind, this:

Well. I've posted high quality videos

Made me almost choke with laughter

Other than that, I think this is a useful resource for anyone wondering about 9/11 conspiracy theories:
http://www.debunking911.com/

And here is a series of interesting videos discussing the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, and interviewing people who believe in them:
https://mylespower.co.uk/category/911/


I will not be responding to any questions from anyone in here, because I've spent way too much of my time in the past ten years actually doing serious research into various conspiracy theories, and wasted too much of my life on both that, and trying to have serious, common sense discussions with the type of nonsensical paranoid types who believe this garbage.

 

[Andrew R]

Just a short post from me here, because I've dealt with this kind of nonsense way too many times before, and tend to take a "let them have their fairytale-like stories" approach these days. People who believe this kind of nonsense, tend to be easily led to it because of their personal world view. They never accept evidence against their beliefs, and will blindly accept the most flimsy attempts at evidence that agrees with their pre-conceived conclusions.

So with that in mind, this:

Made me almost choke with laughter

Other than that, I think this is a useful resource for anyone wondering about 9/11 conspiracy theories:
http://www.debunking911.com/

And here is a series of interesting videos discussing the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, and interviewing people who believe in them:
https://mylespower.co.uk/category/911/


I will not be responding to any questions from anyone in here, because I've spent way too much of my time in the past ten years actually doing serious research into various conspiracy theories, and wasted too much of my life on both that, and trying to have serious, common sense discussions with the type of nonsensical paranoid types who believe this garbage.

That's not really how it works, you can't smear others opinions, post yours, then say you won't answer any questions. At least even the people who believe some of the nonsense try back their ideas up in here.

 

[Mike_grpA]

That's not really how it works, you can't smear others opinions, post yours, then say you won't answer any questions. At least even the people who believe some of the nonsense try back their ideas up in here.

i didn't smear anyone's opinions. the conspiracy lovers in here aren't sharing opinions, they're claiming things as fact, and then not backing their claims up with any evidence. This subject isn't about opinions, it's about facts, and whether you have any for your claims. I posted sources to my claims, that these conspiracy theories are nonsense, and the sources I posted, are chock full of evidence to support my stance.

So yes, this is exactly how this will work.

*Edited to shorten the post and make it more to the point.