9/11 - LF some USA persons to talk about...

Hello guys.
I've been watching Zeitgeist part 1 ( for those who don't know what it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ya5qiiW6k - 9/11 starts at 37:09) and i would like some USA habitants to answer these questions:


-Do you believe in the theory that the 9/11 was made itself by the americans?
-Do your family/friends believe on it too?
-Is it a taboo to talk about it while in social meetings?
-Does anyone talk about the conspiracy at schools/college/etc? (like professors)
-Did you knew about the "Building 7" evidences shown?

I always tought it was forged but this documentary is pretty good with arguments
Gonna watch part 2 and 3 also

 

-Do you believe in the theory that the 9/11 was made itself by the americans?: No.
-Do your family/friends believe on it too?: Idk.
-Is it a taboo to talk about it while in social meetings?: Probably, depending on the reason for the meeting.
-Does anyone talk about the conspiracy at schools/college/etc? (like professors): Probably not.
-Did you knew about the "Building 7" evidences shown?: I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

 

Zeitgeist and Loose Change have both been highly discredited by numerous third party testers and critics. You're late to the game.

 

This, several years late.

I do believe there was a bit of funny business on 9/11 though.

 

When 9/11 happened tower 1,2 AND 7 went down, even in my country media didn't said anything about tower 7. Question is just if you knew about what they say about it on doc.


Well i've been searching about what you guys were talking and the only part zeistgeist was descredited was on the religion thing about mithology etc because lots of things they implied about 9/11 are truth and the thermite is one of them:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

This is solid proof.

Many things make sense, lots of their footage are real, even testemonials, why you say they were discredited?

 

> Open journal --> Not reputable, less held to actual scientific methodical standard, even bypasses peer reviewing in many cases. To explain: you only publish in an open journal if your work isn't good enough to be published in a journal of repute. In other words, you want to publish your article even though the rest of the scientific world thinks it's bullshit.
> study utilises samples that were neither collected in a forensically acceptable manner, nor was the sample space very good to begin with; these "scientists" don't know what statistical significance is.
> Reports on a thermite-like substance, yet does not verify or validate its origin or its purpose.

"This is solid proof." I'm sorry, no it isn't.

-

It baffles me. You have found something which confirms what you actually WANT to believe, thus bringing you to suffer confirmation bias which ultimately means you won't hold it to the same level of scrutiny as you would other information (if you even hold it to scrutiny in the first place).

Being an engineering student with some level of experience in the research field, I kind of laughed the very moment you pointed to an open journal for proof. Those points I made were the very first things I thought when reading the ABSTRACT, let alone the conclusions.

-

Edit: just to make clear, but do you actually understand what they were doing and what the results mean in that study, or did you just read it, not scrutinise it, barely understand it, and claim it to be "proof"?

 

First off: Heyy Swan! Its been forever! lol

On Topic: I think that some parts of the Us governments story does not match up. I do find certain things odd, mainly thee news reporters who were stating that they "thought" they saw an unmarked jet or how the Air Forces' F-15's just "happened" to be doing a training exercise hundreds of miles away that very morning. Also, I think that it is preposterous to think that NO ONE in the Federal Government didnt know something was going to happen soon if not that day.

You should look up "Project for a New American Century" its "a conservative think tank whose members have included Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The paper, titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," talked about the fact that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- a new Pearl Harbor," would strengthen the American military because lawmakers would, given the urgency, green-light funds to continue the military's dominance over U.S. adversaries"

And yes Building 7 COLLAPSED..... even though it was not hit by anything. it was only 47 floors.

People say all the time, "Oh, the US Gov. would never do something like that to its OWN people." or something along the lines for what happened on 9/11... But, the sad truth is that those people are COMPLETELY wrong... It has already happened many times before. One such time was in 1962.

Operation NORTHWOOD:
GO HERE
This is the National Security Archives. Click the link and download the PDF. Once you open it you can read over it, or just go to page 8 of the PDF and read Section 3.

It says, and I quote:
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Page 11 Section 3 - Now Mind you, the JOINT CHIEFS wrote this out, and they suggested in section 3 that, quote:

"We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The United States could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by U.S. fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

THIS is almost exactly what DID happen on 9/11

Also PDF page 11 Section 7: "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged."

And ONE last part: Page 11 Section 8 of PDF:

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

• An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
• Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radiostations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the United States what has happened to the aircraft instead of the United States trying to "sell" the incident."​

​

It stands, to me at least, that if you ask me did the US Gov. have their hand in the cookie jar, i would reply with a resounding yes.

 

Hello sir.

Conjecture, and only conjecture I'm afraid. This can be generally dismissed.

I'm going to dismiss this for the following reasons:
1) Not a reputable source.
2) Conjecture
3) No citation of any supporting evidence

Admittedly I skimmed over the article without reading too deeply, but honestly, that's the first stage of my critical evaluation process, and if it doesn't pass I quite justifiably don't read further (you pick this up when you have to read theses and literally foot-high stacks of research papers.

Lack of evidence or other reasonable conclusion --> Make up an assumption based conclusion that the US government had to have done it. Occam's Razor applies, as there are very easily conceivable conclusions with less assumptions and therefore more viability, provided this issue is even an issue.

Again, CONJECTURE. You are not providing evidence, all you are doing is providing a link to a PROPOSAL that was REJECTED by the Kennedy administration and thus NEVER came to fruition. What you are suggesting is that because a few people with ranks thought it might be a good idea, suddenly the entire government is liable.

Suppose I work for company; I, or any of my colleagues can make a proposal of any kind to our boss. My brother does it when he thinks he has a good idea as he works for a web hosting company. That follows that ANYONE can make a CORRUPT proposal. Just because someone within such a company makes a corrupt proposal, doesn't mean the company itself is corrupt - particularly when the proposal is rejected.

This isn't evidence, this is just providing spin on the issue and submitting to confirmation bias and what I can only really describe as a straw man argument - Northwoods and 9/11 aren't even related in any way, and especially given Northwoods was rejected by the government of the time, it says absolutely nothing about the current government. Case closed.

Every government has secrets. Why do you think the NSA, CIA etc. exist? This point, too, is simply conjecture though. It means nothing, it brings forward nothing meaningful, and it isn't furthering the discussion. It's an unfounded belief as there is no evidence to support it. I refer to a particular logical argument I seem to be increasingly using of late: if something is brought forward without evidence, it may be dismissed without evidence.

 

I see your point Swan. You are right that it is conjecture, i was just pointing out that if the government has proposed doing it before, wouldnt it be a safe assumption to think they would propose it again?

"rebuilding AMerica's Defenses" is a very credible source. it doesnt talk much of 9/11 but rather PNAC and how they would be introducing into effect regime changes in problem countries throughout the world via US persuasion. Iraq included (Saddam Hussein). it was published in 2000. and its also a great read.

I dont refute your statement that its conjecture. I just think that one should sit back and take in all these things (Northwood, PNAC, 9/11, Libya, etc) and evaluate and form their own opinion on the situaions at hand.

 

Possible, but not particularly economically viable. The only outcome of such a proposal would be damaging to the country itself with no real gain. Suffice to say, it's probably more likely that such a proposal would yet again be rejected. A rather meaningless speculation, considering government conspiracy theories about 9/11 makes so many assumptions and baseless claims that they're easily cut down by Occam's Razor, paired with other equally possible but far more plausible causes of the event.

"Doesn't talk much about 9/11"
"Talks about other irrelevant things."

Suffice to say, not a credible source of information or evidence with respect to 9/11.

Why would I accept baseless claims and irrelevant articles and events as a reason to change my stance on evidence regarding unfounded conspiracy?

---

Edit: just to make things clear, I am neither attacking nor insulting you or your views, I'm just looking at them logically and critically. Logic and criticism of ideas (particularly our own) are in my opinion, the best ways we as humanity can better ourselves, and the first immediate betterment is to cease the temptation to believe in things without any evidence based reasoning. Of course, I'm only human so I'm still as fallible as anyone else, but if I am exposed to have the same sort of irrational conjecture-based thinking I do my best to correct it and learn in the process.

Edit 2: It occurs to me that in referring to things like Operation Northwoods as "conjectural evidence" for government conspiracy, you're making the assumption that the current government is the same entity as the government of that time, regardless of the fact that the government itself actually had nothing to do with it apart from rejecting the proposal. Different people in power, different structure, different systems & protocols etc. mean that even if such a thing were to be conceivably valid evidence, it wouldn't stand for the US Government of today any more than it would stand for the Australian government, the British government, the Yugoslavian government, or any other world government; EVERY government is technically capable of conspiracy, but the viability of such a conspiracy is a different question altogether. You cannot plead the case that the US government is special or whatever in this regard, which means it's equally likely that the Russians or the Cubans were responsible for 9/11 instead of the US itself.

Edit 3: Edit 2 was made when partially drunk, so if it doesn't make sense I apologise. You know that feeling when you just want to keep appending things to your statements, or editing your phrasing just that tiny bit to be more sensible and correct? Hah.

 

No no i understand swan lol..

Im not saying that the government of the 60's is the same of today, im just stating that in my OPINION i think that government is government no matter who runs it.

And I agree, i was stating that it outlines some of the ways that government has done things on a worldwide level.. it wasnt meant to be a source about 9/11, sorry if it derailed the OP. Its good to get to talk to someone like you that knows their shit lol

 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was perpetrated by our own government. My personal belief is something around the idea that Bush (and Obama) are just figureheads for a massive Islamic covert infiltration ops that involves the multi-billionaires over there. 9/11 was a plot to divert hostilities and suspicions away from these individuals and onto the US administrations and the Terrorist groups that, when eliminated, would make the American people feel safe and allow this group to go unhindered.

My mother believes it was the horrible and stupid actions of a few radicals while my step-father believes that Muslims are evil and they did it as a group to destroy the "true god" AKA Christianity. My step-father is stupid and racist.

It isn't as taboo to many, just be ready for a shitestorm when you have a differing view.

The "official" discussions blame only the Islams, which I believe is unfair due to my beliefs ^

Yes, and it is because of this that I developed my conspiracy theory

 

I would certainly hope the government is the government... imagine if it wasn't.

Every government does things on a worldwide level. Spying, for example, is considered to be of paramount importance to national security interests for many governments, conceivably. Saying, however, that the government doing anything on an international scale is a reason for or against a certain conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. For the sake of keeping this on topic, though, I'll relate it back to the 9/11 conspiracy theory being discussed.

Consider the following assertion: "the government spies on an international level, therefore the government is capable of 9/11." Neither the premise nor the conclusion are related, which makes the assertion to be of zero meaning and therefore this sort of "coincidence" is of zero meaning when trying to use one as evidence for anything.

As far as knowing my shit, it's more about the ability to critically evaluate claims and statements. Ultimately I want to be involved in an engineering research career, so critical thinking and evaluation is something I consciously try to work on as it is a vital part of research careers (otherwise far less progress would be made). It is, however a skill that can be applied anywhere in life, so I think it's incredibly important.

What legitimate reasons do you have for believing this? It sounds like you believe it because you want to or because of some sort of bias, given there is no evidence and only conjecture and anecdote being used as a basis for what you are saying.

 

you can laugh at me as being a "engineering student", you aren't anything more than me on science level so don't do the "i got bigger dick game", you won't win.


1- I did read the entire study, did you read it too? because there's some vital informations like the way they got the sample so you should read it too.

2- Explain the termophotos taken from sky?

3- yes it's a open journal, if USA did it, who would accept that? wake up.

In my area of study, i've seen many farmaceuticals buying new ways to cure some diseases (in a more efficient and cheaper way) just to keep them in the dark, because the way they sell the current meds to cure them are much more profitable. Think about that.

4- Why in the interview the guy who projected the building said that a plane would NEVER put down a tower alone?

5- Explain the way they went down? You got images as proof, more than that you can't have.

Denying all things just because there's no "oficial and viable proof" isn't going to prove anything ever.

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQchK4X8r0

Here's the main guy who did the study, who got silenced after these conferences

 

Don't be presumptuous, it's the downfall of logical thinking. I cited my experience as a basis for critical evaluation methodology, given my involvement with the research side of my university, not to pretend to be better than you. Insecure perhaps?

From the methods:

Crowdsourcing of samples (and not very many, at that), how professional... But let's assume these samples are valid.

Conclusion 6:

First of all, when iron and aluminium are oxidised by ANY means, be it combustion or even rust, they produce oxides, and they are also naturally occurring minerals which could have been present for any number of reasons. Second, thermite is of course a violent reaction, but not an overtly explosive or destructive one. It's more liable to melt something briefly than cause any sort of serious destruction unless you somehow secretly installed an absolute FUCKLOAD of it in the building's key weak spots covertly... Not very plausible. Due to its non-explosive nature, it'd also be a very poor choice for some sort of missile or weapons attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3ZkoNF2ybg

From their last conclusion:

Organic material in dust? No shit. I could get, for example, a piece of Bauxite rock which contains alumina and ferric oxide, or even just a general rock from my garden. In processing, there is an industry term called Lost on Ignition. What LOI is, is organic materials, water etc that is lost when the material is ignited. Organic materials exist absolutely everywhere, so supposing that they're there on purpose simply because they're there is just ludicrous. For reference, from memory the LOI of bauxite standards from my last chemical engineering project were estimated to be at approximately 20%.

Now, claiming that a substance is CLEARLY superthermite because it contains ferric oxide and alumina as well as some sort of untested and uninvestigated organic material, is simply a stupid claim. Their (remember, crowd-sourced) sample space is also incredibly small, so their DSC analysis isn't all that meaningful in terms of endotherm and exotherm variability of samples. I quote: "...in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests..." - "Sometimes" is not a meaningful word in a small sample space with no investigation in to the actual organics of the samples.

Scanned the paper for these "termophotos", all I kind find was DSC plots, microscope images etc. so you'll have to clarify.

Conjecture mixed with paranoia, seemingly.

For the matter though, scientific journals do not stifle discussion or publication of controversial articles - FAR from it. They promote such a publication or discussion so that these controversial articles may be scrutinised and picked apart by other experts in the field. MANY journals would accept a paper on 9/11 if it were a valid paper which made it through peer review, with substantial and valid evidence to suggest its conclusions.

If the US government WAS truly behind the attacks, they'd have their purpose served far more by sticking their hand in to counter-publications which publicly ridicule the "offending" study and its researchers. Defamation in the public eye serves far more purpose than stifling discussion altogether. Although, I don't really like to provide conjectural counter-arguments as they're kind of pointless to begin with.

Completely, COMPLETELY irrelevant. There is no connection to this and that, even if it were true. Big pharma = US government? That's an anecdotal straw man, I'm afraid.

Are you suggesting that an opinionated interview response without accompanied calculation or demonstration is acceptable evidence?

This is not my burden of proof. It's up to the asserter to prove to their point, not for me to disprove it.

Critically evaluate your own stance. Seriously, sit down and say "I'm biased, but what else COULD have happened?" Write down your responses to those questions - it may take time to overcome the bias and think of ideas as ideas are not always instant. Even ask others with credibility and from a variety of different views on the topic, and research in to alternative theories other than your own. Comparatively SCRUTINISE your OWN beliefs on the matter, then apply Occam's Razor to your findings.

If you find a conclusion that is just as plausible but with less assumptions, and you cannot justify the assumptions made otherwise, then bingo. Case closed. That conclusion is more reasonable.

It isn't up to me to do this, but if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself and you are genuinely interested in this topic, then by all means that is what I suggest even if it takes time.

"Official" would suggest US government findings. Cutting out the US government, there are MANY international, world esteemed journals of science that are independent of the US Government or even the USA.

Here's where you can find SOME of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

Doesn't prove anything. The most you can conclude from this is simple conjecture, which is meaningless.

---

All I can say further is this: Unless actual, irrefutable supporting evidence of government intervention was provided, conjectural thinking gets you nowhere and is in many cases simply misleading. ANY evidence-lacking worldview is misleading. In this regard, conspiracy theories can be likened to cults and religions; the possibility that the cult leader is correct exists, but unless supporting evidence is provided Hitchen's Razor applies, and the cult leader's words remain conjecture and to the critical thinker, simply strange and often disturbing.

Given there has been no valid evidence brought forth, I can only see fit to say that "I don't actually, 100% know, just like I don't know that what is in my history book ACTUALLY occurred. However, given the only support for these conspiracy theories is conjecture and invalid evidence, I'm fairly safe in not believing it."

 

USA gorv. denied all outside organisations to take samples from the place. So they were forced to take them from crowd.

If many workers said they heard and felt bombs BEFORE any plane crash, i truly believe that was what happened, i've seen some evidences of how they installed that but i can't find atm.(see end please)

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots



I know you deserve a better answer and i will give it but atm i'm short on time, i will comeback later.

 

Well this might be a biased opinion since I'm Canadian but yeah I think 9/11 was executed by Americans.

I mean Bush's brother ran security or something for the towers, and if they blew up because of terrorists they'd profit billions from insurance.

It also gave them an excuse to start a war, and helped Bush install fears into Americans so they would vote him in for a second term.

 

You mentioned buildings 1,2 and 7, what about 6?


Larry Silverstein made an exceptional amount of profit. I'm sure he made a 12M$ investment for a 7B$ return only a few weeks later.

And let's just face facts. Buildings do not fall at free fall speeds unless the mass underneath them doesn't exist.

 

Last I checked, acceleration due to gravity is almost completely constant within our atmosphere, and thus a building falls as fast as a watermelon, an armoured truck or the USS enterprise. EVERYTHING falls at "free fall" speeds. Now, I do understand your point about mass below the building, but you do need to define what you mean by "free fall speeds" in context; some context and some supporting evidence for your opinion is generally a courtesy in discussion.

---

@ShiningKun, not going to reply until you finish your post for completeness' sake.

 

I guess fall is the wrong choice of word, collapse at free fall speed would be more accurate. The building started to collapse between 1/2 and 3/4 of the way up, and that "mass" I was referring to would be the building still intact beneath the part falling. So you have core columns, as well as various other heavy duty steel beams sat waiting for the impact, on every level. So to argue the "free fall speed" of collapse, then for the top part to reach the bottom in the time it did, there had to be no mass beneath it, otherwise you get deceleration when the impact is made with each level. Thus resulting in a slower time of collapse, and not working out at free fall. The maximum capable theoretical time it could of reached falling.

And building 7 is the only steel building to collapse due to a fire I believe, I could be wrong though.