What seems sketchy? The events of 9/11 have been pretty thoroughly investigated and reported on.
In the words of Groucho Marx, who’re ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
In the words of Richard Bachman, an asshole is someone who doesn’t believe what he is seeing.
I don’t think its that personal. They appear to have some sort of evangelical campaign to spread the word to all the major message boards they can find. That’s what one of the previous albatrosses said anyhow.
I still don’t quite understand it though - how can someone switch from “this evidence conclusively proves WTC was pulverised by orbital energy weapons” to “OK, THIS conclusively proves WTC was destroyed by missiles overlaid with CGI planes in all of the news footage”?
The two claims aren’t even remotely similar - the only thing they have in common is desparation to deny reality. WTF is going on in a person’s head when they do this?
BWAH!
That’s what I don’t get. The ability of the conspiracy theorists to simply temporarily drop one theory and switch to a completely different theory, which if true would completely invalidate everything they’ve been arguing about for the last week. And then switch back to their first theory as if their arguments for the second theory never happened.
It would be one thing to find someone unshakeable convinced that something happened in a particular way, and no amount of evidence could change their mind. But I can’t understand the mindset that it doesn’t matter what actually happened, as long as it wasn’t the consensus version.
Okay, Dopers, I don’t think some of us are playing fair. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in complete agreement with Tomndeb and Miller on this. There is too much evidence to ignore.
**But ** - the case can be made without the referece to the eye witness accounts. Imagine a scenario where an alien aircraft was reportedly seen hovering over NYC tonight by thousands of people. Wouldn’t most of us be in here in the following days explaining about faulty memories and all the other mind tricks that people play on themselves in order to believe something? I know I would.
Just sayin’.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are a prsion to oneself. A still tongue makes a happy life. Be seeing you.
This is a glimpse into the mind of someone who thinks that “Occam’s Razor” is the brand name of the box cutters used by the terrorists (except that there weren’t really any terrorists).
Then you aren’t understanding the case being made here by either Tom or Miller (or the others). It doesn’t rest SOLELY on eye witness accounts. It basically has a ‘wide base’, in that it can draw on eye witness accounts, actual footage shot of the planes flying into the buildings, the forensic evidence obtained by the FAA and others in the investigation, etc.
No one (here) is going to trust completely eye witness accounts…even the massive amounts we are talking about here. What they trust is the huge amount of data that clearly points to the fact that 3 air craft were used to destroy 3 buildings on September 11th.
-XT
I don’t really think you have to be an expert or professional to be honest…just use common sense. Since we are talking about the Pentagon here, some simple thought would tell most folks that if the Pentagon was hit by a large missile (say, a Tomahawk type) then there would be a bigger hole than the 13-16 foot entry hole we observe. Also, that a substantial amount of wedge 1 would be basically rubble.
Why? Well, because a Tomahawk is DESIGNED to blow things up. Its got a 1000 lbs high explosive warhead. Had THAT hit the Pentagon the explosion would have chewed up the building in a very distinctive way. You don’t NEED to be an expert with the weapon, you don’t NEED to understand the construction of the Pentagon (the wedge in question was under renovation, but it was hardly a bomb shelter or fortified building)…all you need is some common sense. I mean, even leaving aside the fact that large quantities of air craft parts were found at the Pentagon (as well as the other buildings), if one actually looks at the footage AND looks at the damage after its pretty obvious that it wasn’t a large missile that did the deed…the explosion is all wrong, the damage is all wrong.
Unfortunately, it seems common sense among the CT crowd is in short supply…
-XT
SOLELY is your word, not mine, and I understand (and completely agree with) the case being made.
Agreed. My point is, I think it is somewhat unfair to present evidence (understanding that it is only support for all the other evidence) that we would not accept in other (looney) cliams.
I think Miller’s reply should be kept on file and used as the first reply to any and all of these drive by lunatic CT threads.
**Some claims are too stupid to need investigating. **
Well, to an extent, it was. Hardened against truck bombs, the traditional delivery system, at least. And that hardening served it and the people inside it well against an unexpected weapon, a big freakin’ airliner slamming into its side.
I agree that we’re entitled to appeal to common sense. However, I would never presume to advance a theory that flies in the face of massive eyewitness testimony as well as the unanimous or nearly unanimous conclusions of every engineer, architect and other professional who has examined the physical evidence, without being sure that I had some mastery (or at least basic understanding) of the fields of knowledge in question. If I go to six different doctors who all tell me I have cancer, I can’t simply reject that diagnosis simply on the grounds of “common sense,” especially if I’m a layman with little real knowledge of medicine.
True enough. If, however, they unanimously concur that you are possessed of Pazuzu…
If a flying saucer showed up over New York, and a similar assemblage of thousands of eyewitness accounts, dozens of clear photos and videos, etc, backed it up, that would settle the fact that the flying saucer was real. The government wouldn’t be able to cover it up, either.
Every time I think we’ve hit the bottom of the barrel on this nonsense, somebody comes along and breaks through to a whole new level of bullshit, stupidity, and batshit craziness.
(Incidentally, my guess is that this thread’s two guests are actually the same guest.)
Unfortunately, this amounts to an accusation of sock-puppetry/trolling. If you have evidence to support it, you should report it to the staff, privately. If it is only a hunch, then it should not be posted, here. It is a violation of the rules to post accusations of trolling, publicly, in any Forum (with a minor exception for using “troll” as an epithet in The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]