Originally Posted By ecdc If there's one topic most, if not all of us could agree on... Has anyone read anything about these theories? My only interest comes because of a professor at BYU, south of where I live, who has been put on administrative leave for his particiaption in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He claims to have found some kind of explosive residue only used by the military in the wreckage. What's the deal? Our government can't clean up after Katrina but they can fool millions of us while it unfolds before our very eyes?
Originally Posted By gadzuux I saw a documentary about this. It seems far-fetched, yet they ask some interesting questions. The part I remember most was one of the lesser buildings of the WTC - maybe #7. It was never touched by any plane or building, yet it too collapsed. But the way it collapsed was "perfect" - a model implosion - "as if" it were professionally done with explosive charges placed at key junctures. By sheer coincidence, this building also housed many federal government agencies that were involved in clandestine operations. Wild-eyed conspiracies? Our tangible evidence that our government had a guiding hand in 9/11. Who knows? But I wouldn't put it past them ....
Originally Posted By ecdc Hey gadzuux, few people around here are as critical as I am of the current administration. But you really wouldn't put it past them? Even I would... My main problem with conspiracy theories is their structure: They take great pains to point out anomalies, often inflating them beyond what they really are, while entirely ignoring or casually dismissing key arguments against the conspiracy. You see this all the time with the JFK assassination. I haven't seen any of the "documentaries" (and there are a plethora) on the 9/11 conspiracy, but my guess is they spend plenty of time on how a building collapsed when it wasn't hit by a plane, and very little time on just how the government managed to get all these guys together to do this, to pull it off on national television, etc. BTW, Bush and his deer caught in the headlights move in Florida - he's not that good an actor.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I can't believe that Bush would ever be involved in something like that. Now Cheney and Rumsfeld... that's a whole different story...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I am sure Jack Bauer has a thing or two to say about 9/11 and the conspiracy theories.
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://911review.org/" target="_blank">http://911review.org/</a> Above is a link to one of those "crazy" 9/11 conspiracy sites. But check out the section on the infamous 'Building #7'. It's interesting.
Originally Posted By mele I don't believe the govt. orchestrated any of what happened on 9/11. That being said, it wouldn't totally surprise me but that comes from my distrust of any government, not the Bush administration. However, 9/11 sure helped the Bush administration get away with doing a lot of what ever they wanted. If people question anything Bush has done, if they express any negative opinions, they are labeled "un-American" or as "traitors". I think a better president could have fostered the massive patriotism right after 9/11. Now it seems like we are more vastly divided than we were before. It felt so amazing to feel so close to other Americans, be be united as a country. It makes me very sad that that feeling no longer exists.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I think a better president could have fostered the massive patriotism right after 9/11. Now it seems like we are more vastly divided than we were before< watching meet the press and face the nation this Am this exact topic came up and both sides agreed to one thing...Bushdid rally thr tropps so to speak after 9/11 -- remember the show of solidarity in the Capitol steps, and lots of cooperation on what needed to be done.... but then came the brack breaking event -- the next election, and the operatives from both sides returned to their political roots, and that was that....it was never going to be sustainable thru an election period..never has been
Originally Posted By mele <<watching meet the press and face the nation this Am this exact topic came up and both sides agreed to one thing...Bushdid rally thr tropps so to speak after 9/11 -- remember the show of solidarity in the Capitol steps, and lots of cooperation on what needed to be done....>> I agree. Sad that it didn't last longer, sad that it will probably never last long.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <but then came the brack breaking event -- the next election, and the operatives from both sides returned to their political roots, and that was that....it was never going to be sustainable thru an election period..never has been> But I think the division came much earlier than that - no later than the invasion of Iraq in 2003, certainly. There was little attempt to unite Americans - it was immediately "you're either with us or against us." Sadly, that statement was intitally meant for other countries, but essentially ended up as a message and an attitude towards Americans. As for the conspiracy stuff, the weirdest thing to me has to be the Pentagon. The hole there is almost perfectly round - much more reminiscent of a missle than a plane with wings. And according to some people, nothing from a plane was ever recovered - no seats, no wings, nothing from the cockpit... supposedly it all "vaporized" on impact, but that wasn't the case at the WTC, and some people say that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to vaporize and entire airplane. That's the only one that makes me wonder.
Originally Posted By DlandDug As noted above, the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are all reliant on anomalies, rather than an honest look at all that is known. It is not necessary to guess at much that is conjectured in various theories. The facts are there, but if they don't agree with the theory, they are disregarded. (It's called "cherry picking the intel." Sound familiar?) The first and most important thing to remember about the events of 9/11 is that much of what happened was unprecedented. Many comparisons are drawn between what is known and what happened that day. But, in many cases nothing like it had ever happened before. A fully fueled airliner had never been deliberately flown at top speed into a target before. There had been crashes, and controlled experiments, but there had never been a recorded case where planes did what happened that day. Generally, in plane crashes every effort is made to avoid hitting a target at high speed. At the Pentagon, much has been made of the lack of wreckage. Yet, there was nothing of any size found in Shanksville, either. There were eyewitnesses who saw that plane go down, and when rescuers arrived there was just a big hole in the ground and very small pieces of wreckage. (But no one is interested in proving any sinister plots against the farmers' fields of Shanksville!) Wreckage was found at the Pentagon, but that doesn't fit the conspiracy theories, so it is discounted. The plane didn't actually hit the building-- it hit the ground at the base of the building. The "neat round hole" was likely caused by a piece of smaller wreckage drilling into the building at high speed. The fire that burned at the Pentagon took care of anything of any size. Bear in mind, at Shanksville what was left was spread out, at least. In DC the wreckage was inside a concrete reinforced building, with a good amount of jet fuel to stoke the flames. The only reason the building survived was because fire rescue was able to get in close quite quickly. WTC 7, on the other hand, was victim of an unprecented occurence. No steel reinforced building was ever allowed to burn as long (some 6 hours) as it did. Look at the images in the site mentioned above ( <a href="http://911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml" target="_blank">http://911review.org/Wiki/Buil ding7Collapse.shtml</a> ), and you can clearly see smoke pouring out of WTC 7. It was allowed to burn, without mitigation from fire rescue, because of the hazards created by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. (That is the explanantion that was given at the time. I do not know if it has ever been revised.) The collapse was indeed swift-- after the fire had been undermining the structure for hour after hour. Steel does melt. That is why it is shielded by a variety of fire rated materials in construction. WTC 1 and 2 were compromised when the airliners slammed into the building's core. The steel was exposed, and the intensity of the fire, stoked by jet fuel, compromised their integrity. The steel on the upper levels probably didn't melt (no one can know for sure), it simply buckled due to the weight of the building mass above. Whoever ultimately planned the attacks understood physics and American construction codes. That the planes struck where they did was not incidental. It was intended that the fuel oil would stoke enough of a conflagration to compromise the structural integrity of the steel, and bring the building down. It was sheer weight and gravity that did the rest, not imaginary controlled implosions, imaginary radio guided missiles, or imaginary secret military ordinance.
Originally Posted By ecdc "But I think the division came much earlier than that - no later than the invasion of Iraq in 2003, certainly. There was little attempt to unite Americans - it was immediately "you're either with us or against us." Sadly, that statement was intitally meant for other countries, but essentially ended up as a message and an attitude towards Americans." Absolutely, 100% correct. The division did not begin with 2004. In some ways, though I do think the administration has fostered plenty of division, part of it has to do with our American inability to change. 9/11 was supposed to change everything. I think it changed almost nothing about how we as Americans view the world or each other. A year later, in 2002, the top news stories were what they were right before 9/11 - Chandra Levy and shark attacks. We have the attention span of a gnat.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Some interesting odds and ends I found on line. Here are David Letterman and Dan Rather, talking on September 17, 2001, on Late Show. Interesting to hear them praising President Bush <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k26nH6ZpWy0&NR" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =k26nH6ZpWy0&NR</a> Here is a great article from Popular Mechanics, explaining and debunking some of the most persistent 9/11 conspiracy myths. <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y" target="_blank">http://www.popularmechanics.co m/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>We have the attention span of a gnat.<< I won't argue with that. Regretably, we also have the cultural memory of ground squirrels. It's a volatile combination-- not only is there a lack of close attention, there is almost no ability to look at anything in context. But it certainly makes it easier for politicians and their handlers to drive wedges and capture ever smaller segments of the electorate.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <That's the only one that makes me wonder. < yet you realize the size the missile would have to have been and the size of the launcher ? accounts say the plane was sideways ( consistent with the entry of one of the planes into the towers, so that the wings would have sheared off ( or at least one of them) if it contacted the ground at 350 mph -- making the rest of the plane more missile like I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories - this was broad daylight and there would be way too many witnesses to silence --
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Perhaps I should clarify. The Pentagon is the only part of the conspiracy theories that seems remotely plausible. I don't buy it either, but at least you can see where the grist is for the conspiracy mill.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 not having read that hteory - where do they then claim the missing flight went ?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's not just one theory - there are several. Some claim it was hijacked by US gov't officials and downed in the ocean, or blown up over the ocean, others just kind of tapdance around it.
