9/11 - what happened?

What brought down the three towers?

  • Damage caused directly (for 1 & 2) and indirectly (for 7) by the impact of the plane

    Votes: 44 74.6%

  • Controlled demolition

    Votes: 15 25.4%
  • Total voters
    59
Cloggy said:
Rockdrummer..

So, how did WTC-7 come down?

Care to investigate ?
Click to expand...
We have already been there done that. Go back and read the posts on that specific topic. Again, same questions over and over.
 
rockdrummer said:
We have already been there done that. Go back and read the posts on that specific topic. Again, same questions over and over.
Click to expand...

You mentioned "allready answered"... well.... it's not. (Even the official reports don't explain the collapse of a third 47-story building.)

But feel free to ignore it as well.

Holes.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cloggy said:
You mentioned "allready answered"... well.... it's not. (Even the official reports don't explain the collapse of a third 47-story building.)

But feel free to ignore it as well.
Click to expand...
Just go back and read my posts to you. It's been answered unless of course that you believe all of the independent organizations are in on the plot. And you keep refering to the 911 commission report. You gotta let that go man. Several of us here are giving you credible evidence from outside sources yet you insist on holding up the 9/11 commission report. I am really starting to feel sorry for you.

Conspiracy theories have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Conspiracy theories offer explanatory models of complex events to large audiences of the unsophisticated and under-educated
Click to expand...

Answer these questions and see where you fit.
questionnaire on conspiracy theories/..welcome

Also here is some good reading for you.

Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News | AMERICAS | Why we need conspiracy theories
Psychology Today: Conspiracy Theories Explained
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...+a+conspiracy+theory&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
Economist.com
A SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: SOCIAL FACTORS SHAPING PERCEPTION AND DECISION-MAKING
CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Conspiracy Theories: Did we land on the Moon?
Psychology | Who shot the president? | Economist.com
Conspiracy Theory As Naive Deconstructive History
Conspiracy Theories
The Book of THoTH (Leaves of Wisdom) - Conspiracy theory
 
Any progress on searching on WTC-7 ??
rockdrummer said:
..........
Answer these questions and see where you fit.
questionnaire on conspiracy theories/..welcome
Click to expand...
Results
This scale has initially been tested with 100 students from Cardiff University, UK. On average, these students had a score of 4.12 on a scale from 0 to 10. Roughly two thirds of the students scored within the range from 3.00 to 5.25. Your own score on our questionnaire was 3.47. If this value is below 3.00, you are - compared to a UK student sample - someone who shows relatively little endorsement of common conspiracy theories. In contrast, if your score is above 5.25, you belong to the group of people who comparatively strongly believe that the claims of common conspiracy theories are likely to have some truth value.[/QUOTE]
 
Good reading - some of it..

rockdrummer said:
...............

Also here is some good reading for you.

...............
CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES..............
Click to expand...

In here I found.....
...............
1. Introduction

Conspiracy theories play a major part in popular thinking about the way the world, especially the political world, operates. And yet they have received curiously little attention from philosophers and others with a professional interest in reasoning.[1] Though this situation is now starting to change, it is the purpose of this paper to approach this topic from the viewpoint of critical thinking, to ask if there are particular absences or deformities of critical thinking skills which are symptomatic of conspiracy theorising, and whether better teaching of reasoning may guard against them.

That conspiracy thinking is widespread can be seen from any cursory examination of a bookshop or magazine stand. There are not only large amounts of blatant conspiracy work, often dealing with American political assassinations and other events or with the alleged presence of extraterrestrial spacecraft, but also large amounts of writing where a certain degree of conspiracy thinking is more or less implicit. Thus many ‘alternative’ works of medicine, history, archaeology, technology, etc. often depend upon claims, explicit or otherwise, that an establishment or orthodoxy conspires to suppress alternative views. Orthodox medicine in cahoots with the multinational drug companies conspires to suppress the claims of homeopathy, orthodox archaeologists through malice or blindness conspire to suppress the truth about the construction of the Pyramids, and so on. It certainly seems to the jaundiced observer that there is more of this stuff about then ever before.

However, conspiracy theorising is now coming to the attention of philosophers. That it has taken this long may be because, as Brian Keeley says in a recent paper, ‘most academics simply find the conspiracy theories of popular culture to be silly and without merit.’ (1999: 109n) But I agree with Keeley’s further remark that ‘it is incumbent upon philosophers to provide analysis of the errors involved with common delusions, if that is indeed what they are.’ If a kind of academic snobbishness underlies our previous refusal to get involved here, there may be another reason. Conspiracy theorising, in political philosophy at least, has been identified with irrationality of the worst sort—here the locus classicus may be some dismissive remarks made by Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies (Popper 1996, Vol.2: 94-9). Pigden (1993) shows convincingly that Popper’s remarks cannot be taken to support a rational presumption against conspiracy theories in history and politics.
Click to expand...
"Conspiracy Theory" does have a negative sound, it's what makes it so easy to reject it.... And often for the right reasons. Sometimes not. But considering a "conspiracy theory" means stepping away from just accepting information taht is provided to you. It requires looking for yourself...!!!


rockdrummer said:
.......... I am really starting to feel sorry for you......
Click to expand...
Don't focus on me!

BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION..... AREN'T YOU ?


So, I read an article that you proposed....
Care to read this one:
Wednesday, April 5 2006

9/11: The Myth and the Reality


by David Ray Griffin
(Authorized Version)

This lecture was delivered March 30, 2006, at Grand Lake Theater in Oakland for Progressive Democrats of the East Bay. Abbreviated versions of it were given in San Francisco for the Democratic World Federalists on April 2 and the Commonwealth Club on April 3.

Although I am a philosopher of religion and theologian, I have spent most of my time during the past three years on 9/11---studying it, writing about it, and speaking about it. In this lecture, I will try to make clear why I believe this issue worthy of so much time and energy. I will do this in terms of the distinction between myth and reality.

I am here using the term "myth" in two senses. In one sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality.

...........
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cloggy said:
In here I found.....
"Conspiracy Theory" does have a negative sound, it's what makes it so easy to reject it.... And often for the right reasons. Sometimes not. But considering a "conspiracy theory" means stepping away from just accepting information taht is provided to you. It requires looking for yourself...!!!
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to tell you over and over and over again and show you the information and links to it. I have stepped away and looked at the non-government provided information including the conspiracy theories. I have drawn my conclusion based on all of the information provided including yours. Go back and read through your own thread.

Don't focus on me!
Click to expand...
At this point based on your ignoring everything that is put in front of you the focus does turn to you. It has to because you are not conducting yourself as a rational person. You have blinders on and all you can see is the flawed 9/11 commission report and the conspiracy websites. Anything else that is put in front of you is ignored. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION..... AREN'T YOU ?
Click to expand...
No, your question has been answered..again and again. It's you that is avoiding the answers. Go back and read through your own thread.

So, I read an article that you proposed....
Care to read this one:
Click to expand...
I tried but that link doesn't work.
I am a reasonable man. If you or any of the consipiracy theory sites can provide scientific, forensic evidence gathered in accordance with accepted protocol and is supported by peers in the respective community, I would more than consider it. Here is the rub. YOU CANT. And do you know why? BECAUSE IT DOESNT EXIST.
Cloggy... I am done with you on this subject. Maybe someone else will get sucked into this black hole. And seriously, get some help.
 
So you stick with the conspiracy theory brought forward by the govenrment.... That's fine..

rockdrummer said:
Cloggy said:
So, I read an article that you proposed....
Care to read this one:
Click to expand...
I tried but that link doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I tried it, it works. (both on your post and on mine..)

Well, you might not find it interesting to read the opinion of a philosopher of religion and theologian... I hope others will take the trouble..

----------------------------------
To take someone's ideas seriously enough to question them is a significant form of respect.​
 
Cloggy said:
So you stick with the conspiracy theory brought forward by the govenrment.... That's fine..
Click to expand...
You see.. this is the sad part of it all. You keep saying I belive the governments version. I have never said that, I have told you that I never said that, I have provided you with versions of non-goverment sources that hold up to protocol and yet you continue to keep your blinders on and only refer to the government version. And you won't look beyond your sources that can't hold up to protocol. You really do need help!!
 
Cloggy said:
I tried it, it works. (both on your post and on mine..)
Click to expand...
It worked for me, too, but that doesn't mean anything. I've tried to open links in the past that other people could and I couldn't. Sometimes the website is down at that moment, or sometimes it's the user's browser having a problem, whatever. Sometimes I can't access Alldeaf, and then later I can. Who knows?

Anyway, I checked the site, and there was nothing new there. A lot of books, DVDs, and other stuff for sale though.


Well, you might not find it interesting to read the opinion of a philosopher of religion and theologian... I hope others will take the trouble...
Click to expand...
First, I researched the author and the organization (my usual practice). Then I scanned thru the article for anything new.

Nothing new there.

The guy has books to sell. That's OK, we're a capitalist economy.

He's a "theologian" but not a Christian. His theology is in error, and he's not an engineer, so I'm not impressed.

I'm sure it wasn't a biased audience :roll: : "This lecture was delivered March 30, 2006, at Grand Lake Theater in Oakland for Progressive Democrats of the East Bay. Abbreviated versions of it were given in San Francisco for the Democratic World Federalists on April 2 and the Commonwealth Club on April 3."

The website:
OUR MISSION
TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did.


Is the mission to find the truth? No. They have already presumed that everything "official" is a lie.

No surprises there! :lol:

Might their leadership have a political agenda?

The first executive director was David Kubiak:

"Kubiak, who also has been active in the Green Party, is a freelance journalist and director of his own nonprofit research and educational institute, Big Medicine, which studies the 'corporate takeover of our country, culture & consciousness,' according to its Web site at www.nancho.net."

The current executive director is:

"Janice Matthews ... also co-founder of the 9/11 Visibility Project, facilitating activism and encouraging ordinary people to become participants and leaders in their own lives and communities. She has a degree from the University of Kansas and advanced training in social welfare and midwifery...and is studying decentralized populist actions around the world as blueprint for successful change in America."

You can read the rest of their bio's at 911Truth.org ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement
 
Reba...
You said "They have already presumed that everything "official" is a lie."
Could it be that they have not found any truths in the official conspiracy theory ??

Rockdrummer...
You said "... I have never said that..." which might be true.
That doesn't mean you are not believing their official conspiracy theory.
But I'll look back and read your answers....

Both of you:
Did you find an official reason / explanation why WTC-7 collapsed upon itself?? (An official explanation that actually makes sense..)

(And rockdrummer... yes, I looked back in this thread.... )
 
The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta . She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq ....... Read it!

"Are we fighting a war on terror, or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?

Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.



In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! !

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
Click to expand...
 
I mostly agree with her. Her feelings are genuine, and especially with family members over there, I can imagine that she thinks this way.

Her first sentence is a question ..."Are we fighting a war on terror, or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?"

It was not started by Islamic people. It seems to have been started by terrorists that were moslims. There's a difference there.

But wouldn't it be a shame if this war is fought under false pretenses... Bringing democracy, getting rid of Saddam, getting rid of terrorists...
Pam Foster doesn't care about the reasons. She wants her family home.

And the awful things she describes are disgusting. But they are being done by both parties. How should people behave when somone invades their country?
And in my eyes the behaviour of the citizens in Iraq is exaggerated. But I don't live in that culture.

But all this is irrelevant towards Pam Foster. Her focus is elsewhere. And for good reason.

I have also seen another view...

Family of people that died on 9/11 that said:
Do not let the death of my son be an excuse to kill the son of someone else!
 
Don't read this..

The Lancet estimate
In October 2004 the Lancet published a random cluster sample survey estimating that 98,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion up to that point (an 18-month period), and that 57,600 of these deaths were from violence. The October 2006 study comes from the same research team and provides an estimate for the 40-month period from March 2003 to June 2006 of 655,000 excess deaths, 601,000 of them from violence. The data presented do not distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths. Since IBC's work is confined to violent civilian deaths, we make no further comment on Lancet's non-violent death estimates.

The Lancet researchers visited 47 neighbourhoods and conducted interviews in 40 adjoining households in each neighbourhood. About 1,800 households containing 12,000 Iraqis were surveyed. These households reported a total of 302 violent deaths, each of which has been multiplied by two thousand to provide an estimate of how many of Iraq's estimated 26,000,000 population would have died if this proportion of deaths were representative of the country as a whole.

The study's central estimate of 601,000 violent deaths is exceptionally high. Even its lower bound 95% confidence interval of 426,000 violent deaths is shockingly large. If numbers of this magnitude are anywhere near the truth, then they reveal a disaster far greater than most could have conceived, and one which appears inconsistent with a considerable amount of other information that has emerged over the last three and a half years. Before any firm conclusions are drawn on the basis of this study, five important (and extremely anomalous) implications of the data presented by the Lancet authors require examination.

<< Summary ------------------ Implication 1 >>​
 
Cloggy said:
The Lancet estimate
In October 2004 the Lancet published a random cluster sample survey estimating that 98,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion up to that point (an 18-month period), and that 57,600 of these deaths were from violence. The October 2006 study comes from the same research team and provides an estimate for the 40-month period from March 2003 to June 2006 of 655,000 excess deaths, 601,000 of them from violence. The data presented do not distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths. Since IBC's work is confined to violent civilian deaths, we make no further comment on Lancet's non-violent death estimates.

The Lancet researchers visited 47 neighbourhoods and conducted interviews in 40 adjoining households in each neighbourhood. About 1,800 households containing 12,000 Iraqis were surveyed. These households reported a total of 302 violent deaths, each of which has been multiplied by two thousand to provide an estimate of how many of Iraq's estimated 26,000,000 population would have died if this proportion of deaths were representative of the country as a whole.

The study's central estimate of 601,000 violent deaths is exceptionally high. Even its lower bound 95% confidence interval of 426,000 violent deaths is shockingly large. If numbers of this magnitude are anywhere near the truth, then they reveal a disaster far greater than most could have conceived, and one which appears inconsistent with a considerable amount of other information that has emerged over the last three and a half years. Before any firm conclusions are drawn on the basis of this study, five important (and extremely anomalous) implications of the data presented by the Lancet authors require examination.

<< Summary ------------------ Implication 1 >>​
Click to expand...
I couldn't find the link or attribution to the original Lancet report. The links in your post go to only the iraqbodycount website.

It's too bad that the "insurgents" keep killing their own people. It's awful when they bomb people who are lined up for honest work, or when they assassinate leaders who are trying to improve the conditions of their country, or when they kill private contractors who are trying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. They certainly don't have the best interests of their country at heart.
 
Cloggy said:
Reba... Yeh, it's never USA that's to blame is it.???
Click to expand...
Have you ever been in the military and served during wartime in any situation. It's not that cut and dry. I have served and in wartime situations. I know the American military and they do their best to NOT target non combatants. In fact with today's technology we are far more accurate than ever. I dont condone war but in this imperfect world sometimes its a necessary evil. And please don't take that as an endorsment for the war in Iraq. But that is whole thread in and of itself.
 
rockdrummer said:
hmmm... As I understand it Islam is a religion whos adherants are known as Muslums. Terrorists can come from any walk of life or religion.
Click to expand...
INdeed, and the official conspiracy theory says that the terrorists, the hijackers were moslims. Other theories dispute that (with good reasons) and say that the terrorists were Americans.
So you are right, they can come from anywhere...

So just like it's wrong to say it was started by "Islamic people" it would be wrong to say it was started by "Christian people". One could use "Started by people that are Islamic" or "People that are Christians"
 
rockdrummer said:
Have you ever been in the military and served during wartime in any situation. It's not that cut and dry. I have served and in wartime situations. I know the American military and they do their best to NOT target non combatants.
Click to expand...
And still 1000's are being killed. Carpet bombing was still done in Afghanistan etc.
rockdrummer said:
In fact with today's technology we are far more accurate than ever.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. That's one of the thins I disagreed with in the letter you posted. The woman talked about "fight like men" but using all the technology has nothing to do with fighting like men. It's fightin like a video-game.
rockdrummer said:
I dont condone war but in this imperfect world sometimes its a necessary evil. And please don't take that as an endorsment for the war in Iraq. But that is whole thread in and of itself.
Click to expand...
I realise that, and I realise that civilians DO get killed in acts of war. And that is exacly why, when reading that letter, I thought "How many more American women would feel that way and how many Afghan and Iraqui women. The latter outnumber the Americans.... but then, it's only Americans that count.

Saw a documentary on the difference on CNN, broadcasted in USA and CNN international. If you are ever oversees, have a look.
(If you're interested, I can send you a link to that documentary.)
 
Cloggy said:
FACT is that a 757 doesn't fit. But who's to say that 64 people were recovered from the rubble..... Wasn't it an inferno destroying everything???? How could they recover 180 bodies from an area where "everything was in little pieces".
They lie about 757 entering the building (If it happened, they have the camera from the sheridan and the gas station to show it) so why not lie about dead bodies in there...
You know. I'm sure they are dead. I'm quite sure they didn't die on the plain they boarded. It makes it even more sad. And the more reason to dig deeper.
___________________________________________________________________________
If we ASSUME, that makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!
Click to expand...

I'm obviously very late in arriving in this thread, and still catching up (I'm not even sure I'm going to make it through all 15 pages), so I'll apologize if anyone before me has already responded to this... but I just HAD to take issue with this theory of yours.

I saw AA77 take a nosedive into the Pentagon that day, from a distance of about 1/3 of a mile. I was on my way to work into the city (in a taxicab on Washington Blvd, which runs right by the Pentagon), having just gotten onto it from I-395N. I'm going to say this just one time: it happened. It was without question the most horrifying thing I've ever had a chance to witness in my life, and the image of it was seared into my brain for literally a year afterwards. I couldn't fly for another 3 years afterwards, and to this day, STILL have anxiety issues with flying.

Yes, there are still unanswered questions about what happened that horrible... some of which we may never know. But I know what I saw that day. It was not a small plane, it was not a missile, it was a 757 passenger jet, and those of us that saw it happen knew immediately that it was an American Airlines flight (radio reports immediately following the collision would erroneously report that it was another United flight).

It bothers me tremendously that there are consipiracy theorists out there goign on and on about what "really" happened that day, when I can still hear the horrible roar coming from the west seconds before impact, and I can still smell the jet fuel lingering in the air, as we stood outside our cars staring in abject horror at what we had just seen. I can still remember trying desperately to get a cell signal to check on loved ones I knew who worked in the Pentagon, or who were contractors FOR the Pentagon, and who sometimes reported there for briefings.

Conspiracy theories such as yours do a disservice to all the people who lost their lives that horrible day, and they do a disservice to anyone and everyone who lost someone that day. Shame on you.
 
Back
Top