Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006 - 05:31pm PT
|
"why haven't they just made the folks who are at the forefront of exposing this massive conspiracy dissappear?"
Michael C. Ruppert check out what they did to him.
You guys will never get it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006 - 06:17pm PT
|
"WHY HIJACK THE JETS??????????????????????"
An unanswered question posed by Ron. Anyone answering "The jets weren't really hijacked" will be made to stay after class, and write "I am a conspiracy theory nut" 50,000 times on the blackboard.
110 story buildings, in the process of collapsing, would surely make a myriad of very loud, explosion like noises. Bang crash smash rumble etc etc. Explosion like noises don't require explosions.
Conspiracy theorists need to shave with Occam's Razor - why is it that such theories almost invariably require the most assumptions, and usually improbable assumptions at that? I agree that we don't know everything about how the world works, and why things happen. I very much agree that those in power often wish us to know less than the truth - although often they don't know it all either. It takes a vast leap to conclude that this means that there is a giant elaborate conspiracy behind every event that occurs.
Anders
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006 - 07:46pm PT
|
... why is it that such [conspiricy] theories almost invariably require the most assumptions, and usually improbable assumptions at that?
Right, those whaco conspiricy nuts and their assumptions about some crazy "magic bullet."
Actually, it's because the "official" 9/11 report requires so many assumptions for me to be a believer, that these assumptions in themselves are the cause of my questioning. While I'm not convinced that 9/11 was a conspiricy, I do have some questions that are not directly answered by the official accounts.
With WTC 7, the account that uses the least amount of assumptions is that it was brought down by controlled demolition. This is the solution that is most consistent with the result and the one that uses the least amount of assumptions. If you knew up front that the building were brought down by controlled demolition, there would be very little to argue. It would have been a perfectly executed demolition.
However, the official account requires pages and pages to support the theory that damage to the building, along with the fires inside, were enough to completely demolish every inch of the edifice.
From Popular Mechanics: "...NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated."
This a direct admission that the FEMA explaination is inadequate. And the NIST explaination makes the ASSUMPTION that the building was "far more compromised" than originally thought.
If the inputs don't equal the end result, you can tweak the inputs so the result is as desired. In this case, just turn up the damage input until it equals the amount needed for a total, perfect collapse.
I am not a conspiricy nut, but when I have to assume a lot of hard-to-swallow things for the "offical" account to make sense, I begin to question.
peace out
|
|
Walt Heenan
Trad climber
Voorheesville, NY
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006 - 09:24pm PT
|
What did they do to Michael C. Ruppert?
k-man - It seems that you are suggesting that since the official report took pages to explain its conclusion, that that somehow implies that it requires more assumptions than the single, simple assumption that it was intentionally brought down by a controlled explosion. If that's the case, then I think you are misunderstanding the assumptions that are being made in the two cases.
Case 1: Assume collapse is a result of damage/fire. Now see if it can reasonably be explained using known facts and assumptions based on science, forensics, etc. Maybe many assumptions here, but that's not surprising since this was a complicated event that destroyed much of the evidence during its occurance.
Case 2: Assume collapse is the result of a criminal conspiracy (controlled demolition). This is not a simple assumption as it requires many assumptions to support it. In my opinion, the assumptions required to support this hypothesis are so far beyond reason that they strike me as irrational. In any case, lots and lots of assumptions need to be made to support this hypothesis.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006 - 10:45pm PT
|
Piton Ron the answer would be to simply cover the truth while simultaneously inflaming the fears and passions of the attacked.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006 - 10:52pm PT
|
Wow, thats really something, the way they could fly them right into the points on the towers that would collapse when exploded by preplaced charges that could still be relied on to detonate despite any disturbances by the crashes.
Wanna buy a bridge?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 12:41am PT
|
Sketch wrote "Considering the current administration's track record for bungling up relatively simple situations, do you really think the neocons could have pulled this off and not had a single whistleblower or leak in the last five years?"
Actually, its even harder to swallow that 19 Arabs pulled this off, none of them had flown a big jet before, and the only other guys implicated have been Sheik Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden.
I don't know what degree the government was involved or not. I don't believe all the demolition theories. They seem like disinformation to me, designed to throw investigators off course and discredit inquiry.
But I do think the whole thing could have been facilitated by Dick Cheney and a handful of CIA folks. You'd just need someone inside Al Queda to suggest the attack (and isn't funny that Bin Laden used to basically work for the CIA and miraculously hasn't been caught) and for Dick Cheney to have war games on 9-11 that made it difficult to intercept the planes or track them on radar. (and how come we haven't heard more about these war games and their effect on the 9-11 response)
The government knows how to control us sheep. Hell, we can be practically certain that Bush and Cheney lied to get us into a phoney war in Iraq. Why isn't he in jail or impeached? It wasn't an honest mistake.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Wonder
climber
WA
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 12:53am PT
|
it'z all a bnch of hoooy.
|
|
Walt Heenan
Trad climber
Voorheesville, NY
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 08:08am PT
|
Ron, could you get rid of some of those ????????????????...????????? They are making the thred hard to read. Thanks.
|
|
Walt Heenan
Trad climber
Voorheesville, NY
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 08:15am PT
|
I don't find it hard to believe that 19 people pulled this off. I don't think that it's all that hard to *fly* a big jet.
Takeoffs and landings are hard for sure. But controlling a jet already in the air and pointing it at a building would be
pretty easy I would guess. I've never flown one but I am a private pilot. I'd love to hear from some pilots who have flown big jets what they think.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 08:47am PT
|
Yeah Ron, what's with the ????????????
This isn't some sabotage effort or terrorist attempt on the thread, is it Ron?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 09:00am PT
|
"Conspiracy theorists need to shave with Occam's Razor"
Uh, no actually.
The razor suggests that where 2 equally valid explanations exist, we should use the simpler one.
It does not state that the simplest version of things is always true, nor does it say that complicated explanations are always wrong, despite what you want it to mean.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 09:56am PT
|
Walt wrote:
"I don't find it hard to believe that 19 people pulled this off. I don't think that it's all that hard to *fly* a big jet.
Takeoffs and landings are hard for sure. But controlling a jet already in the air and pointing it at a building would be
pretty easy I would guess. I've never flown one but I am a private pilot. I'd love to hear from some pilots who have flown big jets what they think. "
Don't forget we're also talking about navigating that plane straight to NY or DC, zeroing in a certain buiding and hitting it square. In the case of the Pentagon, they had to swing down and around steeply and fly just above ground level at high speed before they hit the building, all with the pressure of being a hijacking in progress and knowing they were about to die.
Shoot, it's sad that 19 guys could be so much more competant than our own stupid government.
peace
Karl
|
|
sketchyy
Trad climber
Vagrant
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 10:57am PT
|
K-man did you ever wonder why loose change only showed pictures of the north side of wtc7? Because the south side was billowing smoke. Also to say that 7 was a planned dropped you would have to be accusing the firemen of being in on it. The fire men evacuated 7 more than an hour before it collapsed. To call loose change a documentary is a joke. It does not hold up to the slightest bit of investigation. Why was the "expert" that guaranteed the building were imploded in the mining industry? Because every one in the implosion industry said there was no way in hell that was an implosion. Watch lolloosechange911. It is the same movie, but about an hour longer because it includes FACTS. Also to say that a missile hit the pentagon is ridiculus. Look at all the light poles that are knocked over. Do you really think a missile swerved all over the place, hitting 5 poles and a generator before hitting the pentagon?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 11:54am PT
|
Assume collapse is the result of a criminal conspiracy
(controlled demolition). This is not a simple assumption as it
requires many assumptions to support it. In my opinion, the
assumptions required to support this hypothesis are so far beyond
reason that they strike me as irrational. In any case, lots and
lots of assumptions need to be made to support this hypothesis.
From what I have read and seen, the collapse of WCT 7 is
consistent with that of a controlled demolition. Disproving that
it was a controlled demolition has nothing to do with adding up
the assumptions of how it could have come about, that would need
to be looked into if it was found that a controlled demolition
could indeed have been the cause. To rule out controlled
demolition outright, because "how could they have done that?", is
not, IHMO, looking at all possibilities of how it could have collapsed.
If you start with the premis that the building came down due to
damage from the falling towers and fire, then your job is to
figure out the inputs that would lead to the known conclusion.
Was any investigation done to rule out controlled demolition? I
doubt it because who in their right mind would believe that this
cause was a possibility. Still, a lot of evidence points out that
this was a possibility.
Ron, if I were a conspiricy nut, I would say they hijaked
the planes and flew them into the buildings to cause a
distraction (and a cause) for when they wanted to blow up the
towers. If the buildings just came down on a normal day, I think
folks would question how it happened. Now, we all just assume
that those fuel-ladden planes were the cause of it all, end of
story.
Now remove some of those dumb-ass question marks!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 12:16pm PT
|
Piton Ron is a conspirator, trying to use the ????? to stymie any discussions about this.
|
|
whattimeisit
climber
Moab
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 12:25pm PT
|
Check out the movie Loose Change.
And what happened to the plane that flew into the Pentagon. It just disapered. hummmm.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2006 - 04:21pm PT
|
I came back to this thread in the hope that Ron would have deleted those blasted ????, as I would like to read other people's comments.
But apparently he doesn't realise what he has done and is away from a computer to rectify the situation.
Either that or he has done it deliberately, which sucks, but he doesn't strike me as that sort of fella.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
How to fly straight and level. (lesson 1). 
Let us know!