You’re wrong on this one, ravenous nitpicker. I just did. Perhaps you do not understand what a conspiracy is.
No, I understand what a conspiracy is and how it does not mean the same thing as a conspiracy theory.
Considering the wackjob places you got your other information from, for all we know you think “conspiracy” is a type of Italian cheese.
The fake cheese, in a green shaker? Ahh. Now I know the real truth.
Conspiracy Parmesan. Yeah that’s CP, right there.
I’ll never not see it. Forevermore.
(
Sometimes I crack me up)
And I was afraid no one would catch it. 
Oh no, let’s just hope this doesn’t set him down the path of “evolution is just, like, a theory man.”
The facts about 9/11, along with all the supporting evidence, are officially stated in the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (informally, “the 9/11 Commission Report”). If you disagree with the facts presented in this report, as you seem to have been doing throughout this thread and before (which is what led to this thread being spun off) then you are indeed implying a conspiracy within the US government to hide or obfuscate the facts on a major issue of vital public interest. This is classic conspiracy theorist behaviour.
I have never once suggested that the government was behind 9/11. A person can question what happened without ever suggesting an organization is behind it. Except around here, apparently.
…that was also in the Pit. And had nothing to do with 9/11.
Still with this bullshit.
You can question what you like. But if you base those questions on false premises, scientific illiteracy and paranoid delusions, and then ignore every answer and citation addressing those questions, you will be rightly mocked.
I hesitate to mess up this thread but did see a news article in the San Diego Union-Tribune about the 9/11 plot. Though the article was published maybe on 8/7/24, the paper didn’t seem to keep it posted on their site.
The article concerned the FBI’s interview of a Saudi plotter who calculated the rate of descent for the hijackers to crash into the WTC. The author was really reaching to hold interest since the articke had nothing new to say about any 9/11 plots.
I think conversation about 9/11 now is almost exclusively historical account. It surely is when I tell one of my 20 year old coworkers that I’ve been working with my non-profit since 9/11. 
@Biffster, believe me. Quit reading this thread.
You’ll be much happier.
It will go away.
It will just keep going round and round. You’ll never get the last word.
I believe you didn’t start the thread. You initiated it by making your comment in the other thread.
I don’t know what you believe nor do I care.
Going this route will only cause you harm.
The jury is in. The truth is determined.
Just drop it. Best for you. Best for everyone.
Thanks for the reminder. It’s just too easy to get drawn in, but you’re right. No amount of persuasive arguing will change the mindsets of certain people. Nothing to gain.
If you were serious about closing this thread you would have PM’d the mods. Instead, you engage in public performance about how butt-hurt you are. You are welcome to stop responding to this thread on your own yet you continue to engage. That would seem to indicate you enjoy the mud wrestling.
The only one I see here with an “ignorant manner” is you, Biffy-boy.
After working an 8.5 hour shift in retail I find it cathartic to be able to yell at someone who richly deserves it.
-
Yeah, sometimes shit happens that you don’t have a say in, sometimes as a consequence of something you say or do. Welcome to the adult world.
-
The mods don’t have to consult you before making a decision. Again, welcome to the adult world.
-
The mods do care. They care that a long-established thread not be de-railed by a done-to-death topic they know will generate a lot of hot air and that is why they split this off into its own thread. The fact that the mods don’t care about what you care about, or have the same view of things, is entirely irrelevant.
-
You don’t have to be involved here at all if you do not want to be. NOTHING compels you to stay here, to respond, or even acknowledge that this thread exists. A number of years ago I was the subject of a Pit thread and I simply chose not to participate in any way. If you state opinions there will be a certain number of people who disagree with you and part of being a grown up is dealing with that fact of life.
-
You chose to be here on the Dope, you can choose not to be in a particular thread, or even decide to leave this forum. So STFU about “have to” or “must” or “wah-wah-wah - this isn’t going where I’d like it to”. You were free to join, you are free to leave, or to take a break, or to only spend time in a sub-part of this forum, or just the threads you like and you aren’t called out on your bullshit.
Your decision.
Change who’s mind(s) about what?
When were you planning to present any persuasive arguments? Were they the ones that you based on falsehoods like “missing wreckage”, or the ones where you stamped your little feet and declared that your nonsense was your “opinion” and that you had a right to it, or the ones where you accused us of refusing to question the official narrative just because we wouldn’t give credence to the first two approaches?
I mean, you’re correct that no amount of persuasive arguing will change the mindsets of certain people, but they’re not the people you think they are.
Some helpful hints for the Biffster:
- Scientists and analysts frequently use the Empirical method. They are careful to eliminate biases and pre-examined assumptions. When they look at a plane crash, they don’t automatically assume it doesn’t look like a typical plane crash. They’re going to examine distances, weights, locations, and find any record of communications (the black box) up until the moment the crash occurred.
- Next, what “most likely” caused the crash? They had evidence of terrorists who planned to hijack the planes. They traced the terrorists actions, living conditions, origins, and found evidence of their plans to hijack and control the planes for the single purpose of crashing them into America’s most cherished structures for the sake of disheartening their enemies. They had records of communications, which included passengers telling their loved ones over their phones what was happening. So, they went with that.
- If there was a simultaneous operation to collapse the tower that didn’t get hit by a plane, they would have found evidence of explosives discharging at key structural points. Plus, the conspirators would have had to infiltrate the tower, scouted out it’s structural weaknesses, and arranged to have highly charged explosives smuggled in without being seen by any of the tower’s inhabitants. Any controlled collapse of a structure takes weeks to plan, and they found no evidence anything like that took place. They also didn’t find any communications between the terrorists and any inside jobbers. That makes a controlled explosion much less possible than the effects of a plane crash.
There you are, a snark-free summary of the SDMB’s general analysis of 9/11.
But you’re doubting the evidence and conclusions in the official government reports. That can only mean one of two things: (a) you think you’re smarter than all the scientists who wrote the report, or (b) you think the government is lying in order to cover something up. So which is it?
I’m genially curious. You question that it was airplanes. Do you have an alternative explanation?
Solid holographic projections from an alien race conducting traffic surveys for a hyperspace bypass.
Damn. I was going to say holograms, but combined with Deep State-planted explosives in the buildings.
My theory is that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Change my mind!