True about WTC 9/11/2001

The atheist's process to finding their belief seems to typically be the exact opposite of the conspiracy buff's process.

Religious people assert claims that are not falsifiable and claim this lack of falsifiability as proof of their claims. Conspiracy theorists do the exact same thing.

Anytime you unravel their argument they attempt to re-ravel it by claiming some higher encompassing truth(which is really just internally, self-fulling logic) that supposedly makes their previous assertion true.

The atheists I know seem very much less likely than the religious to believe or disbelieve because it makes them feel good.

I'm agnostic, probably pretty close to an atheist, and I don't feel good at all about it. Believing in God makes things simpler in a lot of ways and provides a crutch that can actually help you live a more fulfilling life.
In fact, giving up my belief in God left me with a void I wish I could get back.

But the fact that I was indoctrinated before I had a say in the matter, and the fact that evidence for all the proposed gods that I'm aware of is pretty shoddy, I have to give up that belief. I certainly don't feel good about it, but I deal with.

You must go where the facts take you, neither the religious or the conspiracy theorist have much appreciation for facts. They have higher priorities than finding facts whether they are aware of those priorities or not.

For the conspiracy theorists the priority may simply be to act out paranoia, anti-government sentiment, or inherent dislike for authority, and the conspiracy theory is merely a manifestation/presentation.

The religious probably have deeper biological and social reasons for deprioritizing facts, plus they often have incentive to deprioritize facts through fears of having a really bad afterlife.

 

Conspiracy theorists are not the government.

Ok mr. engineer

Explain the flashes below the actual collapsing of the building. Explain the extremely small hole in the Pentagon. Explain the lack of plane parts/debris found as the pentagon. Explain the molten steel found at the bottom of the building, when the fuel used by jets doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.....

I'm as logical as the next man, which is why I can't believe that the US Government didn't play a hand in 9/11. And it is quite easy for a few thousand people to know and be part of something. I'll explain the phrase posted above.

In the government, any agency, from the military to the CIA. When an operation is planned, it is compartmentalized. What this means is you only deal with a certain part of a mission. You are not briefed on the goal. You are only given enough information to ensure you can complete your small piece of the entire puzzle. Even Al Queda uses it.....

And, just so you know, my background consists of investigating felony crimes. Which, in case you don't quite understand that, is nothing but fact finding. This is why I don't believe the official US Government version of events.

 

Projection indeed.

Well, I guess you can't really argue with that, now can you?

Someone should watch some videos of building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane if you'll recall, and plug in the time it took to fall and the height of the building into the equation I posted above and see what happens.

There is a lot of talk about conspiracy theorists, but not a lot of looking at the videos I posted. So much for logic...

Just in case you're having trouble wrapping your head around the fact that the government could be evil enough to do such a thing, just remember the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Operation Northwoods. Also remember there is a thread here on DP about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Compartmentalization makes the crime more difficult to investigate. You cant, however, apply that process to the investigators themselves. This is an investigation that spanned public and private sectors. As I said before, I'll grant you there are some things that bear further explanation, but that does not mean there are not valid explanations for those things, government conspiracy being one(1) of those possible explanations. In the meantime, I'm forced, as a person of logic, to run with the evidence I currently have before me, and leave an open mind for the development of additional evidence.

 

Same here. I was explaining to Crowin how compartmentalization works, not you. An investigation needs access to it. Why does the government not release the full video of the Pentagon? Why only a couple frames of nothingness? Same with the steel, and the flashes. Add that to the administration wanting something catastrophic so they could go to war, and it all points towards one thing. Plus, if you people honestly believe a bunch of rag tag cave dwelling people can plan something this intricate...and execute it correctly, than..........

 

That is actually a misnomer. There is no question Bush Jr. wanted to go into Iraq to remedy the errors of his father, but to say he "wanted something catastrophic" is a bit of a leap and without any evidence whatsoever.

Correction... highly trained, extremely well funded cave dwelling people lead by a highly educated Saudi. Tim McVeigh didn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed and he and his buddy managed to deliver some rather spectacular results.

Personally, I don't find attacking a non-hardened target all that great of an achievement. The airlines, the buildings, all easy game. If you put together a plan to take out a movie theater by chaining all the doors from the outside and burning it to the ground, I find it highly probable you would be successful. Although someone may have thought about the possibility of that happening, I doubt anyone has put into place the type of planning to take such a threat seriously. Logistically, its not a very difficult plan to carry out. It just takes a person or persons with the commitment, focus, and ideology to carry out that kind of insanity.

 

Re-writing history is fun!!!

 

While I didn't want this to be about Atheist vs. Deists, you are, in fact, further proving my analogy. You are personally projecting an intolerance (bigotry) on what you call "Religious people" that is exactly the same as the intolerance of conspiracy buffs. It's still the same bigotry and it's just as ugly.

Also, while you are taking my analogy too far (ANY analogy fails when taken to the extreme), you are using it incorrectly. I was referring to atheism vs. deism, NOT atheism vs. religiosity (believing in God and believing in religion is definitely NOT the same thing).

The significant difference here is that, both true atheists and deists are both happy and secure in their believe/nonbelief in God, and are not threatened by what others believe.

Contrast that to the true conspiracy buff, who is completely intolerant of anyone who dares to think differently than them. This is shared by only a very tiny (but very very vocal) minority of the religists.

 

(emphasis above added by me)
See, now you are behaving like a boring, common garden-variety conspiracy buff. You are demanding that I do detailed research to explain your claims, and insisting that I watch/read your "research", while making it very obvious that you have not read the Popular Mechanics report, haven't you?

Did you take physics in high school? What grade did you get? This isn't complex at all, this is elementary-school physics stuff. This is so simple, you will be too embarrassed for you to admit you are wrong.

You embarrass yourself with your claim, "fuel used by jets doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". It shows a sad ignorance of elementary science.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Steel melts at 2750°F. But steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100°F and is further weakened exponentially above that. With the exception of schools and hospitals, any commercial structure that loses more than 50% of it's structural integrity (remember that the WTC skin is load-bearing) is going to collapse. This was Strength of Materials year 1, semester 1, of my engineering degree.

It is your complete lack of understanding of such simple and elementary concepts of the most basic and fundamental laws of science that betrays your complete inability to discuss the science of the subject intelligently. You are promoting a false point of view where your interest is not scientific, it is emotional and bigoted.

Because you do not understand what heat is!

 

No, sir, you are the one projecting. I'm merely stating facts(well I believe it to be a fact, because of the personality type of most non-believers) that agnostics and atheists tend to apply the same standards as those who find most conspiracy theories abhorrent. An appreciation for real fact finding and and a regard for something resembling the scientific process cannot be applied to one group but not another because one group's beliefs coincide with yours.

And just because I apply the standards consistently does not make me a bigot. It's funny, how I can apply these same standards while calling conspiracy theorists kooks, nutjobs and wackos and you never accused me of projecting or being a bigot then. But when I apply the same standards to your belief system I'm a hate-filled projecting, bigot.

How do you know this? Speculation? Jeeze, talk about projecting.

Wrong. I know a lot of religious people, almost everyone in my family(extended even) and most people I know outside of my family are either deeply religious or have at least a casual belief in the christian god. In fact, pretty much none of them know that I don't believe in their god because I haven't told them, because I see and hear how they react to others who don't believe.

It's just too much trouble, so when we're at a funeral or thanksgiving or anywhere where they pray as a group, I just bow my head and pretend to pray like the rest of them. I'd be ostricised(albeit probably mildly) if I didn't just go along.

 

His, like most of the conspiracy theorists assertions, are based on bad information or faulty assumptions. The "free-fall speed", argument, the "hot enough to melt steel" argument, the "lack of debris" argument, are pretty much all based on outright lies, misrepresentation or lack of understanding.

Here's a good article concerning the "lack of debris":

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

 

Do you understand what it means to be secure in your beliefs? Do you feel that way about anything?

If you feel secure in your beliefs, then you do not feel threatened if people believe differently - this isn't projection, it's healthy congruency. On the other hand, if what other people believe make you feel threatened, then you are NOT secure in your belief, because people that believe differently make you feel insecure! Would you agree with this?

Look, my family is the same way. BUT - like your family, I have learned that they do not represent the majority of people.

As a successful marketing person, I've learned that my own personal experiences with people can create false assumptions.

 

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say "whatsoever".

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" --PNAC guys

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (hit "ctrl f" and type pearl)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_Harbor


Osama didn't have NORAD running around clueless. Nor did he prevent the FBI from stopping the stooge "pilots".

I think most of us have better things to do than unwind these conspiracies, but the PTB don't seem to want to let us be. It's really getting late in the game and people who still pretend to believe the official conspiracy story are sounding more and more desperate everyday.

I know some people just don't want to believe it, but just look at evidence, look at the videos (I mean the footage of the events), then listen to them tell you that you don't see what you see (this goes on all day at youtube), listen to them tell you you didn't hear the anchors that day saying exactly what you were thinking as the buildings collapsed. Listen to the them mock honest curiosity.

Why don't they want to talk about building 7? Does NIST? That opens it all up. And they know it.

 

Too bad they didn't have paper shredders in building 7, they could have avoided the entire event snd still got rid of their secret papers. Yeah, I guess blowing up a building is a sure fire way to get rid of sensitive documents.

Just out of curiosity, just how many people do you think it would take to pull of this conspiracy of yours?

 

Case and point for "Truthers". Find a document where someone points out a fact, then lean on that fact to imply those people used, or even implied they might use that method to achieve an end. If I said 8 years ago that to make my home correct would take forever, unless it was torn down and started from scratch, and then 8 years later it burns to the ground, could one construe I implied it might be a good idea to perform arson to make my house right? Good luck with that.

 

Is it Briant's assertion that no one has looked at the footage of the events?

The 9/11 footage are, without any doubt, the most scrutinized and watched footage in history. For Briant to demand that we look at the footage and come to his conclusion, one that that absolutely no expert, absolutely no one with even a 2-year Engineering degree, has ever agreed with, tells me that he is not interested in the truth.

There have been some very manipulative videos produced out there meant to prey on the naive and uneducated, of which Loose Change is just one. The way these people insist that we look at the video, watch the video, see the video, commune with the video - the zombie-like insistence of people like Briant that we look at these videos is EXACTLY THE SAME as how brainwashed cult members will insist that you talk to their Guru. Look at Briant's words above. Isn't' it kind of creepy?

 

What you said:

That document was written for PNAC. Project for a neocon American communism, or something like that. People should look them up and see if there is no connection "whatsoever" between them the Bush administration.

So the WTC collapse doesn't look like what the people reporting on it that day (before the offical conspiracy story became state religion) said it looked like, i.e., a controlled demolition? Check out the NIST reports explaination and then lack thereof for WTC 7's collapse. It's laughable.

Everyone reading this should watch the raw videos and then read the shills on youtube and make up your own minds.

As for brainwashed, that boot's firmly on the other foot.

 

NO, you are not stating "facts".

You are stating your EXPERIENCE.

Do you understand the difference?

 

Briant, may I remind you, that you do not understand "heat" and it's effects on metal???

 

Considering an event like 911 never happened before there is no reference as to what it should look like. They said it looked like a controlled demolition, not that it was one, yet there are many variations of controlled demolitions, some collapse on thier own footprint, some topple to one side, depending on the surrounding area. No matter how the buildings collapsed they could have been compared to a controlled demolition.

But answer me this, why exactly was WTC 7 brought down then according to you?