I agree-the “conspiracy” theory is just about the most non-rational thing ever concocted. You would have to assume that:
-the millions of people (who saw the second plane crashing into the second tower) were duped 9somehow)
-the explosives had to be planted and set off with NOBODY seeing ANYTHING suspicious
-the conspiracy involved hundreds 9if not thousands) of people who have kept absolutley silent
Frankly, Biblical literalism (i.e. the earth is 7000 years old) makes MUCH more sense. I’m amazed that people subcribe to this.
One is reminded of the method Holocaust deniers use. They are not really trying to prove anything, and are not defeated by evidence or logic. The whole point of their argument is to find weak spots where you really can’t prove that this particular photograph isn’t faked, or that that particular room has been used as a gas chamber (though ususally focusing on insignificant details), because if you admit that, yes, you’re right, I can’t beyond all reasonable doubt prove that that wasn’t an ordinary shower, the whole idea of the holocaust begin to crumble in the eyes of the denier (and weak minded hang arounds). If that photograph is a fake, how do we know not all is fake; if that gas chamber is a shower, how do we know that all “gas chambers” in fact aren’t showers, and so forth, and the whole jewish conspiracy is laid open in front of you. Or at least, you can show aspiring young nazis that there in fact is a conspiracy going on (look at this photograph for instance, etc).
That’s why, if you listen to or read a debate between holocaust deniers and people who knows what they are talking about, you notice the same phenomena as you see here: How the denier (or CT guy) without much sentimentality just drops his original argument when debunked, and moves on to the next presumed weak spot, and the next, and the next, until the other side is weared down. OTOH, if the other side holds ground, the denier/CT guy silently moves to another forum.
(Of course, I’m not saying these CT guys are nazis, deniers, or in any other way [except method of argument] resembles them top of the line nutjobs, nor that they in any way share those kind of believes, etc.)
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
The funniest thing about it is, let’s imagine that it is extremely difficult to make a skyscraper come straight down, and requires precision timing of explosives. Why would the conspirators have gone to so much trouble to make it look like a controlled demolition if they didn’t want anyone to know? We’re supposed to believe that they went to great pains to produce these neat collapses for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn’t the evil Bush Administration conspirators have wanted the buildings to topple over? It would have been even more dramatic.
[/QUOTE]
That just means that Silverstein did it (Jew. Need I say more?) The theory is that Silverstein did it for the insurance money. He would want them to fall straight down so clean up would be easier. Or it was Bush. Or both. It depends on which kooky theory fits with which evildoer, even if it contradicts the last kooky theory.
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
If you’ve got the World Trade Center towers rigged with enough explosives to bring them down, and you want to make it look like a terrorist attack, why bother with planes?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
If explosives were the cause, why bother with the planes? Why not simply wait until the building is full and then set them off? Sorry, no conspiracy here, other than the terrorists. Even they kind of blew it, had they chosen flights an hour later the buildings would have been full, plus they should have aimed lower in the buildings which would have trapped more people. For being so “sophisticated” they sure screwed up.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
But the real problem here is, if they had time to wire all of the buildings with explosives, why not just trigger the explosives, and then blame it on Al Qaeda? Why bother with the planes at all?
Once the planes started hitting, Bush had all the pretext he needed. Taking down the building with additional explosives is an unnecessary additional risk, and makes no operational sense. If he knew Al Qaeda was going to attack, why not just sit back and let it happen? Why take the additional risk of wiring the buildings ahead of time?
[/QUOTE]
Why bother, indeed?
Funny how they always come in three’s. Here’s the 411. 
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I’ve got a list! I’ve got a list!
[/QUOTE]
I’m not on it, am I?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
There were no “World Trade Centers”, and the supposed collapse was filmed at a secret Hollywood studio.
[/QUOTE]
And the footage was shot by Stanley Kubrick, who like JFK and Elvis isn’t really dead.
Or maybe it was Walt Disney, who isn’t really dead either.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
.
Let’s say he’s right and the government did stage-manage the hijackings and the plane crashes. What possible benefit would there have been in gilding the lily by setting explosive charges in the buildings? Consider the risks:
- Possible discovery of the charges before the planes hit by any of the thousands of people in the buildings.
[/QUOTE]
Let me take this piece by piece, then I’ll catch up on the rest of the thread.
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
.
2. Possible discovery of the charges by the police and fire officials swarming all over the buildings after the planes hit.
[/QUOTE]
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
.
3. Possible discovery of the charges after they malfunction or fail to detonate because their placement or wiring has been disrupted by the planes crashing into the buildings!
[/QUOTE]
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
.
4. Possible disclosure by any of the hundreds of conspirators who would have to have been in on this scheme.
[/QUOTE]
I bet 10 people could have done this, and 9 of them are dead now. So who’s blabbing?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
.
There’s no upside if it works and a huge downside if you’re caught. All to accomplish something that might happen anyway if you’re lucky. It’s just a silly idea.
[/QUOTE]
REALLY!
[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
[/QUOTE]
Except the towers collapsed exactly where the planes hit, which were occupied floors. So even if there were buffer floors (which there weren’t) it wouldn’t match up to what we observed.
[QUOTE=Telemark]
Except the towers collapsed exactly where the planes hit, which were occupied floors. So even if there were buffer floors (which there weren’t) it wouldn’t match up to what we observed.
[/QUOTE]
OK. Let’ s try an analogy:
If I punch you VERY HARD in the stomach, will you,
a. Bend over double, groaning in agony. or
b. Crumble to the floor in a tidy heap.
I know which one my money’s on! Anyone betting with me? 
[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
OK. Let’ s try an analogy:
If I punch you VERY HARD in the stomach, will you,
a. Bend over double, groaning in agony. or
b. Crumble to the floor in a tidy heap.
I know which one my money’s on! Anyone betting with me?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a skyscraper.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I’m not a skyscraper.
[/QUOTE]
Use your imagination then. Have you got one, or do you just run all these
relevant “facts” through your brain, like R2D2 and, respond appropriately?
[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
Not likely if as claimed, there were “buffer” floors used for maintenance in towers 1 and 2.
[/QUOTE]
I have it on good authority that there were actually buffers used in the towers. Here’s a photo of one:
[QUOTE=CurtC]
I have it on good authority that there were actually buffers used in the towers. Here’s a photo of one:
[/QUOTE]
Why, the backwards lettering in that photo convinces me it was faked. As does the vanishing cord on the right. And the suspicious lack of background scenery…
But, of course, that was all done on purpose by the government to make me think it was faked. My god, it must be real!
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I’m not a skyscraper.
[/QUOTE]
Answer is C: Your midsection would burst into flames and black smoke would come billowing out of all your pores. Your internal organs would leap from your body via the nearest available orifice, regardless of how high off the ground.
After 20 or 30 minutes, your head would come crashing down through your body. Each section of your body would be pulverized by the weight of the crumbling sections on top. You would indeed end up as a pile of smouldering body parts on the floor.
Then George Bush would send Dick Cheney over to break LOUIS CYPHERE’s neighbor’s kneecaps and set his house on fire.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Why, the backwards lettering in that photo convinces me it was faked. As does the vanishing cord on the right. And the suspicious lack of background scenery…
But, of course, that was all done on purpose by the government to make me think it was faked. My god, it must be real!
[/QUOTE]
Another fool who think’s he’s got a full-tank, but is unaware his fuel-pipe is leaking.
It really is quite sad. 
[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
Another fool who think’s he’s got a full-tank, but is unaware his fuel-pipe is leaking.
[/QUOTE]
Direct personal insult are not permitted in this Forum.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Direct personal insult are not permitted in this Forum.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]
OK. Sorry! But can I just throw this in;
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Eleanor Roosevelt
So why are you so against name-calling then, the majority of people on here do
not even use their real names. Surely there must have been some funny slanging
matches on here before you went all wussy?
[QUOTE=LOUIS CYPHERE]
OK. Sorry! But can I just throw this in;
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Eleanor Roosevelt
So why are you so against name-calling then, the majority of people on here do
not even use their real names. Surely there must have been some funny slanging
matches on here before you went all wussy?
[/QUOTE]
Name-calling disrupts the discussion because it results in posters trying to one-up their opponents for nasty names (ands generally indicates that one’s arguments are insufficient and that one’s only recourse is to call people names).
The rule has been in place since the first days of this message board; it is not a change or recent development.
If you would like to challenge the rule or discuss a change to it, please use the The BBQ Pit Forum which is established as
[ /Moderating ]