What Really Happened on 9/11?

Are you using popular mechanics for your reference ?

What makes you think the engineer was talking about the south tower ?

Why do you always ignore WTC 7 ?

Does this look like a pancake collapse ?

Well, yes. To me, it certainly does look like the core of the tower is pancaking. But again, you are trying to have it both ways. You are saying, it must have been a controlled demolition because the tower collapsed neatly into its footprint. And in the next post you are posting something saying it must have been a controlled demolition because chunks of debris were ejected over a wide range, and the tower didn't pancake (i.e. it did NOT collapse neatly into its footprint).

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds.

He says it would have taken the South Tower 9.2 seconds to collapse. That might be true if we assume that the South Tower started collapsing at floor 110.

Zippo, this is really easy to adress.

Do you believe the South Tower started collapsing at floor 110?

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?

628,000 web sites and 3000 books and there ALL insane???????

Jesus christ!!!!!!! movies........FU**EN MOVIES.

Sombody shoot me in the head. Please.

628,000 web sites and 3000 books and there ALL insane???????

It's like a comedy, This is like a dmn comedy.

Amigo wrote:

Jesus christ!!!!!!! movies........FU**EN MOVIES.

Sombody shoot me in the head. Please.

628,000 web sites and 3000 books and there ALL insane???????

It's like a comedy, This is like a dmn comedy.

Who can convince the insane that they are not sane?

Reality. The reality of facts. Not movies.

http://www.fluxview.com/JollyRoger/1-6-05.htm

*Conspiracy theories arise from evidence. After the government releases an explanation of a particular event, a conspiracy theory is only born because evidence exists to disprove their explanation, or at least call it into question. There's nothing insane about it, unless you define sanity as believing whatever the government tells you. In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity.

In July of 1996, flight 800 exploded over Long Island. Shortly after their terrorist explanation failed scrutiny, our government then explained the event by claiming that a faulty electrical system caused a spark that ignited a fuel tank, and the people who doubted this explanation were quickly labeled "conspiracy theorists." More than a hundred witnesses saw a missile travel from the ground up to the plane just prior to its explosion, but rather than being treated as eyewitnesses to an event, they were labeled "conspiracy theorists," which label allowed all subsequent investigation to ignore the strongest evidence in the matter.

Our "investigative" news agencies decided to accept and disseminate the official story, and they helped us forget the U.S. naval station nearby, the fact that missiles were regularly test fired there, and naturally, they paid no heed to more than a hundred "conspiracy theorists" who saw the plane get blown out of the sky by a missile. I believe that the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down flight 800, and that's my belief because it's the most sensible explanation that can be drawn from the available evidence. I'm not theorizing about conspiracies, but there are conflicting explanations of the event, and if the Navy did accidentally blow a passenger plane out of the sky, who would have a motive to lie about it? The U.S. government, or a hundred witnesses?

Then of course, there were the "crazy conspiracy theories" arising from the bombing of the Alfred Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. In that matter, audio tapes and witnesses agree that there were two explosions, the first of which occurred inside the building between eight and ten seconds before the truck bomb exploded. Explosive experts agree that Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer bomb could not have destroyed the building, and the FBI's counter terrorism chief, and members of BATF lied about their whereabouts during and prior to the catastrophe. The evening news decided not to tell you any of this, and they will label anyone who tries to a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." In light of the evidence, we would be complete fools if a conspiracy theory didn't exist.

Conspiracy theory

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.

Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.



Overview

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for a conspiracy claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

Many conspiracy theories are false, or lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously, raising the intriguing question of what mechanisms might exist in popular culture that lead to their invention and subsequent uptake. In pursuit of answers to that question, conspiracy theory has been a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore since at least the 1960s, when the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy provoked an unprecedented level of speculation. This academic interest has identified a set of familiar structural features by which membership of the genre may be established, and has presented a range of hypotheses on the basis of studying the genre.

Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labelled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. If legitimate uses of the label are admitted, they work by identifying structural features in the story in question which correspond to those features listed below.


Features

Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

...

Clinical psychology

For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, ...

Sociopolitical origins

Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people. Other social commentators and sociologists argue that conspiracy theories are produced according to variables which may change within a democratic (or other type of) society.

Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance. Alternatively, believers may find themselves committed to a type of activism, to expose the alleged conspirators; see, for example, the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Where responsible behavior is prevented by social conditions, or is simply beyond the ability of an individual, the conspiracy theory facilitates the emotional discharge or closure which such emotional challenges (after Erving Goffman) require. Like moral panics, conspiracy theories thus occur more frequently within communities which are experiencing social isolation or political disempowerment.

Mark Fenster argues that "just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean they are not on to something. Specifically, they ideologically address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production, which together leave the political subject without the ability to be recognized or to signify in the public realm" (1999: 67).

For example, the modern form of anti-Semitism is identified in Britannica 1911 as a conspiracy theory serving the self-understanding of the European aristocracy, whose social power waned with the rise of bourgeois society.[3]

A particularly political individual or group may respond skeptically or cynically towards an event or process which does not fit with his/its existing worldview. For example, a neo-Nazi or an anti-Israeli organization such as Hizbollah might promote claims of Jewish involvement in 9/11 in order to incorporate that event into its own political narrative in a manner compatible to meeting its own ends.
[edit]

Disillusionment

In the late 20th century, Western societies increasingly experienced a process of disengagement, disaffection or disillusionment with traditional political institutions among their general populations. Falling election participation and declines in other key metrics of social engagement were noted by several observers. For a prominent example, see Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone thesis. Those who were most influenced by this period, the so-called "Generation X," are characterized by their cynicism towards traditional institutions and authorities, offering a case example of the context of political disempowerment detailed above.

In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks which grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority. For example, some people attribute the September 11, 2001 attacks to a conspiracy involving the U.S. government (or disfavored politicians) instead of to Islamic terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda (see 9/11 conspiracy theories.)

...

"628,000 Web sites and More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published."

That sure is alot of "Healthy skepticism" turned into "Paranoia" from " extremists here in the United States."

I am a healthy, Hard working, tax paying, beer drinking, God fearing, American Citizen. My Dad was in the Navy, My stepdad (from a very young age) was in Viet Nam. My sister is a school teacher and a qrauduete from U.S.C. and yet from this media outlet who is directly connected to the government and homeland security I am a "Parinoid extremist"

628,000 web sites and 3000 books worth of American "Paranoid extremist"

Amigo wrote:

"628,000 Web sites and More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published."

That sure is alot of "Healthy skepticism" turned into "Paranoia" from " extremists here in the United States."

I am a healthy, Hard working, tax paying, beer drinking, God fearing, American Citizen. My Dad was in the Navy, My stepdad (from a very young age) was in Viet Nam. My sister is a school teacher and a qrauduete from U.S.C. and yet from this media outlet who is directly connected to the government and homeland security I am a "Parinoid extremist"

628,000 web sites and 3000 books worth of American "Paranoid extremist"

I typed "sasquatch" into google... 2,840,000 pages (English only)

number of web sites and books hardly make a topic true.