How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

Faust,

There is no proof of the official story. NIST never released its procedures and its tests are not reproducible, which fails to make it objective science, and therefore you have to take their word for it. And of course their word is not scientific proof. It's not even proof at all unless vigilance is dead and you let your government go unchecked. Additionally, there are several blatant holes in the physics of their explanation, such as the disappearance of angular momentum (and don't even pretend that this has been explained, because it hasn't, unless you want to explain it for us).

I'm being solid here; publish any new scientific data from test/experiment results without including exactly how you did it, so other scientists can't possibly reproduce it, and no one will take it seriously. This would especially be the case when there are obvious physics problems with your findings. And yet this is exactly what NIST did.

I know you'll probably respond to this with some kind of rant that you'll pull out of your behind, about how I'm too paranoid and need to watch more TV or something, but I figured I'd post this anyway.


By the way, my dear Faust,

Do you at least notice some of the other conspiracy dissenters here, such as Zaphod, Tinkleflower, and even Howard (though he often takes pleasure in a disinfo tactic or ten) post actual substance? Do you notice how these guys post actual counterpoints to our statements, rather than rambling on about how paranoid we must all be? Consider making these guys role models. I think it would help you to sound a lot more reasonable.

Originally posted by bsbray11
rather than rambling on about how paranoid we must all be?

i think you do a good enough job of that yourself.

I just want to say this regarding some people who seem to contribute little and only mock.

There is a fine line between paranoia and healthy suspicion. I see many threads on this forum suggesting conspiracy theories that I find ridiculous. But sometimes I'll still consider the possbility. I think putting your complete trust in the government and expecting them to always be looking out for their people is foolish. They've repeatedly shown that our interests are not their first priority. And it's continually getting worse.

However, I think people should refrain from suggesting new and wild theories without some evidence or something to back it up.

I don't really know where I intended to go with this post. I'll end by saying this: If you don't believe in conspiracies and think we're all fools for questioning the government, then perhaps a forum dedicated to the discussion of conspiracies is not the best forum for you to be at. Being skeptical is good, for all sides. But one should not discount the possibilites offhand.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack or particularly directed just at one person, and I don't mean to take this thread off-track.

While I admit that there are some rabid people on both sides that go WAY overboard in defending their point of view (ie: You're an idiot if you think I'm wrong. You're sheeple if you don't disagree with the government.) I have nothing but the utmost respect for Bsbray, and wecomeinpeace. They have handled themselves incredibly well with the debates I've had with them, when there were times I wanted to pull my hair out and felt like I'm beating my head against a wall I seriously doubt that they're paranoid, or delusional, or anything else you want to call them. Just because someone has different beliefs than you do, and puts forth evidence or discussion to further their beliefs, does NOT make them a paranoid delusional psychotic. It simply means that they believe differently than you do. That's what makes this a great place to visit. It would be pretty boring if everyone thought the same way you did.

First off, let me repost what i've reposted again and again. Maybe this time it will actually be read. I'll word this a little differently this time.

There is a big difference between discussion and what some others on this board are doing that call it discussion. For example:

"Is it possible for Bigfoot to be an extra terrestrial? I've found that famous video of him it would appear that he has some sort of metallic band around his arm. Any thoughts?"

Ok, that is open for discussion. Now the "discussion" done in this forums form:

"Bigfoot IS an Extra Terrestrial. It is PROOF POSITIVE because he is wearing a U.F.O. armband that obviously links him psionically to his cloaked spacecraft."

This form of comment IS NOT open for discussion. The person who posts statements like this is claiming a fact not based on evidence but pure suspicion. No matter what anyone rebuttles with it does not matter. The person who posts it, is not going to be swayed in his comments because his mind is already closed.

It's just plain scary that people on the Cryptozoology boards discuss about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster in a very open minded way WITHOUT trying to bash their beliefs into your mind claiming everything they say as fact. Yet, when it comes to actual events in real life, people seem to be automatically unattached to reality. Theodore Kaczynski was one of these people. You know, the Unabomber? Or do some people on here think he was a C.G.I. image?

And I've had some GREAT discussions about 9/11 here as well. I've changed the way I've thought about some things that happened that day, and it APPEARS that I may have changed the way that other people thought about things that happened that day. Not enough to make anyone say "Oh! So THAT'S what happened!" but enough to say "Yeah, that's possible." and to start looking into other ideas. Just because YOU are seeing people rabidly defending their beliefs doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly civilized, excellent debates going on here. One thread, and three comments does not a pattern make.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
it APPEARS that I may have changed the way that other people thought about things that happened that day. Not enough to make anyone say "Oh! So THAT'S what happened!" but enough to say "Yeah, that's possible."

Here are some of the claims that people are saying:

Bush planned 9-11.

The planes were remote controlled into the towers.

A missle hit the Pentagon, despite eye witnesses seeing a 747 plane.

Bombs were planted inside the towers by really rich guys who wanted MORE money.

Al Queda is a scapegoat for all of this.

There were NO terrorists on these planes.

Zaphod, please tell me you don't actually believe these outlandish statements.

Ok, show me ONE time I said ANYTHING about what I believe. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter WHAT they believe, not all the people that I've been discussing 9/11 with are raving paranoid psychotic lunatics. And there definately ARE some interesting things that happened on 9/11, that are stretching the limits of the imagination. Just because someone doesn't believe the same as you do, and is strong in that belief doesn't make them paranoid, or raving lunatics.

"I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Originally posted by LeftBehind

For instance you will hear much talk about steel being able to withstand 1000F and not lose integrity. However when you look into it, steel exposed to such heats loses about half of it's integrity. Despite this you will find many people here exclaim that a 2000f fire is not enough to weaken steel.

And if you REALLY look into it (not that you have to, it's been mentioned about a hundred times), the steel will be affected by those temperatures only after several hours. Especially when only small portions of the fire show these temperatures.

And if you really, really looked into it, you would know the difference between temperature and joules.

For instance, you would know that the temperature of a candle flame is over 1500 K,
yet the energy output in joules is pretty low. Therefore, it would be impossible to heat up a building with a single candle, even though the temperature of it's flame is high.

On the other hand, the energy output for the fires in the WTC towers was comparable to the energy output of a small electrical power plant. The jet fuel, the cubicle furniture, building materials, computers, aircraft cabin interior parts, etc, all burned releasing a huge amount of heat.

And it you really, really, really look into it, you would realize that the statement "only a small portion of the fires show those temperatures," to be completely ignorant of basic physics and chemistry.

Originally posted by Faust
LOL, Dude, your brain is gone. I'll tell you what, PROVE to me the earth is round.

Oh, I forgot that innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore. Look, if you can't back up your claims don't get defensive. That's your problem, not mine.


And Howard. There have been fires that burned much hotter for much longer without collapse. You threw out a lot of terms there, but you really only mentioned to things: jet fuel and other miscellaneous material that burns. The jet fuel was mostly an accelerant that started the fire. So I suppose you really just mentioned one. Why buildings 1 and 2 collapsed is a lost cause for both sides. There is no evidence, other than video tape, and neither side seems to have viable proof.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by white4life420]

Look, again I will ask you, if you have any proof please go to this thread and post on it. If the proof you have is "a plane was hijacked, it hit buildings, they collapsed", then don't bother posting. You laugh and mock everyone who posts here and yet you have less evidence and certainly no more open-mindedness. That would make you a bad researcher.

You've got to have something. If you believe so strongly that you attend these forums daily and make no other posts besides "no you're a paranoid idiot" then you have got to have some sort of proof. Otherwise, go the hell away.

So please post documents, news articles, pictures, reports, and post eyewitness reports. Lets try out best to keep the government's word out of this. Taking their word would make about as much sense as letting OJ off because he claimed "Not Guilty" -- even though we practically did anyway.



[edit on 20-9-2005 by white4life420]

Originally posted by Faust
For example:

"Is it possible for Bigfoot to be an extra terrestrial? I've found that famous video of him it would appear that he has some sort of metallic band around his arm. Any thoughts?"

Ok, that is open for discussion. Now the "discussion" done in this forums form:

"Bigfoot IS an Extra Terrestrial. It is PROOF POSITIVE because he is wearing a U.F.O. armband that obviously links him psionically to his cloaked spacecraft."

This form of comment IS NOT open for discussion.

Here's a more accurate representation:

"I think Bush was intimately involved with the events of 9/11."

That's open for discussion, of course, but there is little more to be discussed of statements such as the following:

"The disappearance of the angular momentum in the topmost floors of WTC1 and WTC2 as they collapsed indicates that the frames had been shattered and the floors were no longer acting as single solid objects with columns, etc. acting in relation to each other, as per the law of conservation of angular momentum."

If you feel that statement is incorrect, then by all means show why you think it may be, but just as you can be sure that an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force, you can be sure that the previous example holds up. Those sorts of statements are very limited in terms of such a "discussion" from non-believers. You must realize here, Faust, that on this section of ATS we're not just using our imaginations as if we were commenting on aliens or bigfoot, but piecing together scientific information in regards to an extensively observed event.

But then, certain people will come forward and say that such science is somehow wrong and that I don't know anything about physics, etc., though never explaining how or why the above point is wrong, and then in your case you may complain about how we may claim this as proof of demolition. Well, this may not be direct proof of demolition, but it's certainly proof that the frames of the top floors were somehow shattered (unless you would like to offer evidence for otherwise to compromise this scientific law, and maybe pick up a Nobel prize or something while doing so). Again, we aren't using our imaginations on this one like we might on bigfoot and aliens. Two totally different worlds of information.


Btw, Howard,

Any direct evidence of the fires being sustained anywhere above 600 or 700 degrees Celsius? I mean like direct evidence; not pictures of fires with "looks pretty hot to me" or etc., because I'm under the impression that if anything, there is only evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Earlier this year i watched a documentary on the Assassination of JFK on the History Channel. Using advanced computer graphics not available when the Warren Commision did its findings they shed new light on this "conspiracy". Ignoring wacko eye witness reports, they concentrated exclusively on exact replicas, science, tragectory, angles and exact computer generated visuals. The so-called proof about the magic bullet was proven to be found highly inaccurate. They proved there were 3 bullets, not 4 fired and that Oswald acted alone and could have squeezed off all the shots. They proved that by integrating the famous Zapruder film, Kennedys motorcade seats in back were elevated higher thus allowing the magic bullet to happen, but not be "magic". I had believed that there was a conspiracy for most of my life. Until i saw this evidence with my own eyes, i had followed the paranoid movement for quite some time. But, thank GOD that i had an opened mind and was still able to think for myself and see the truth.

Perhaps 10-20 years from now they'll have a special on the History Channel about the 9-11 bomb theory and the weakening of the support beams,...etc. If they prove through science that the collapse was directly a result of the planes and not bombs, then these nay sayers will fade into the dark as if they weren't saying anything about it before.

Well congrats on your epiphany and all sir but I hardly find that to be relevant.

Kind of funny that it took them 30 years to figure out a way for the offical story to be possible anyway. That hardly should convince you.

Point being that you conspiracy wackos are always WRONG in the end.

Originally posted by Faust
Point being that you conspiracy wackos are always WRONG in the end.

Correct. Anyone who believed Hitler had bad intentions when stripping away German's freedoms to provide security from the communist's was a wacko. History certainly shows that.

I'm not saying that you're comparing Bush to Hitler. Or maybe you are, i don't know. Then again, Kanye West, who is known for his superior intellect about politics and expertise on who is and isn't a racist even without meeting them did say Bush didn't like black people AND neither did Hitler....hmmm. My GOD, it's all obvious now.

Anyway, i'll try and steer straight here. Involving our freedoms, you're refering to the Patriot Act, correct? It's been just under 5 years since it was implemented. What freedoms have you lost since then?

-The government, state and federal, can now hold prisoners indefinitely.

-The government, " ", can now hold without a lawyer.

-The government can now hold without making the arrest public .

- There is no freedom of information act anymore. The government, both federal and state, can deny practically any request for information by stating it is a matter of national security.

-The government can now set up checkpoints to stop vehicals.

-The government no longer needs a warrant if believed you are a terrorist.


There's more but I'm at work, so I'll leave it at that for now. However, I will add to keep in mind that the definition of terrorist is anyone who breaks a law and endangers a life.

Lets break down what that could be. Jaywalking, speeding, DUI, marijuna and other miscellaneous drugs, etc.

I just don't see it that way.

Isn't that using an incredibly broad definition, white, and one which would not apply to the law at all?

I'd be interested to hear about the first "terrorism" charge levied upon a jaywalker.