6 ms·

You can say what you want, but many strange things happend that day. Like the free-fall speed of the buildings: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/Billiard

• singular 15y ago
  Sigh. No disrespect intended, but you could spend the rest of your life arguing this stuff, just like any other conspiracy theory. But I'll bite this once so it doesn't look like I'm 'ignoring' your 'evidence'. I won't respond beyond this. You can't argue against the fact of what would be required for this to actually be a conspiracy, that is concrete and vital to the contention that it wasn't what it appeared to be. You have to explain that, or otherwise we have nothing to talk about. Remember - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'This is weird' does not count. But... I'll carry on for the sake of it. Saying things looking 'weird', or 'how do you explain x?' is meaningless - yeah, weird stuff happened, so what? In many scientific experiments 'weird' stuff happens that can't be explained, that's the way it is - nature is just a strange beast and weird stuff happens, despite us being able to determine the truth of the core matter. Ask any experimental scientist about this. That is, of course, assuming there is any truth or validity in the 'evidence' provided which I really can't be bothered to look at, as I have n number of seconds left to live in my life, 0 of which I want to spend reading crank bullshit. A brief few seconds of googling got me this - http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimates-the-corpse-of-the-dustification-lady-dr-judy-woods/ http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimat... I recommend in future you google both for and against ridiculous claims made with little to no evidence. The crux of the matter is - did planes strike the buildings and cause them to collapse? The answer is yes, unless you believe the vast majority of competent engineers (note there are many engineers + architects who are also conspiracy theorists - also note my reference to 'competent' - there are plenty of incompetents and nuts in every walk of life, engineering + architecture being no different) and scientists out there who accept the cause of collapse are conspiring to lie too, in which case you may as well abandon any attempt at reason whatsoever because the whole world is just utterly one endless conspiracy. On a personal note - I am a Civil Engineering graduate from one of the best CivEng departments in the world (Imperial College, London). I remember discussing the collapse with a professor of structural mechanics and he had no problems with the mode and cause of collapse whatsoever. I make this, not as a resort to authority, but rather pointing out that you, yes you have to explain why he could not work out what this internet randomer could. The simple fact is that you can cling on to all sorts of 'weird' goings on as evidence of all sorts of strange theories, however several points remain the case:- 1. To prove point X, you don't need to explain every weird apparent occurrence Y and Z, you only have to prove point X. If this was not the case, experimental science wouldn't really have made much progress over the years. 2. If you make an extraordinary claim that utterly contradicts point X, you need to provide overwhelming evidence to back that up - saying 'oh isn't Y and Z weird?' isn't really sufficient. 3. Random shit off the internet doesn't count as 'evidence'. I'd ask you to consider what we're talking about here - the murder of thousands of innocents, and I'd like you to ask yourself whether your not having even bothered to google for opposite points of view (took me all of 10 seconds), or considering whether that evidence is valid or sufficient to discredit the 'mainstream theory' is in good taste, or actually in essence quite offensive. Note that a hell of a lot of the 'evidence' these sites mention is flatly false. Practical Mechanics gave a good overview - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/122... Okay, that's it on this subject. I'm not interested in responding further to this.
  • wil2k 15y ago
    I'll keep it short too because I agree that you can keep arguing things for the rest of your life. - I just find it odd that Dr. Jones doesn't count as some 'internet randomer' for you while someone with an opposing theory with similar degrees does (Dr. Judy Wood). - If you have to prove point X that was accompanied with weird occurrences X1 and X2 with theory Y. Theory Y is not complete until it can fully proof point X, /including/ its weird occurrences. Until that point, theory Y might be a good explanation, but never a complete one. - Completely ignoring oddities and weirdness in an event where thousands of innocents died, that's what I call offensive. If things like surviving passports, hijackers that are still alive, engine blocks melting and cars rusting in no-time at blocks away behind other buildings and 100's of other strangeness and coincidents don't give you ANY gut feeling to look beyond the official story then I'm sorry it's not a University course. - I agree that a whole lot of 'evidence' on alternative sites is false. But I'm not mentioning these sites so don't try to associate me with those. I mentioned a few things that /I/ find odd, nothing more, nothing less. Two final points: - I'm not saying that the (US) government did it, but if you have any historical knowledge, you know that governments have and will definitely sacrifice some of their citizens if the things they can gain with it are worth it. Unpleasant to think about: hell yes! A reality: very sadly yes! - You probably have never looked into the more alternative physics and their horrific weaponization potential. Think the work of people like Tesla, the super-classified research done by the Soviets, the Nazi's, etc. Stuff you can find discussed by 'non-kooks' if you look for it. If you come from this perspective of history and alternative weapons research, the signatures of such technology could fit many of the things seen like a glove..
    • ThomPete 15y ago
      But here is the problem. Conspiracy theorists are assuming the conclusion before the evidence is in place. You know just like religious people can make anything seem like an act of god. Or believers in Nostradamus make everything seem like he was right. The list of alternatives stories one can make in retrospect is more or less limitless. If you have already decided that the government are conspiring against their citizens then you will take any weird phenomena and use that as an argument for you case. But you could might as well make another conclusion far less spectacular yet as horrific. For instance that the US government knew something was going to happen and they let it happen. This would be a far less outrageous claim to make even though it's really pretty much wrong. Conspiracies look like those that Wikileaks expose once in a while. They aren't well orchestrated, they aren't masterminded, they are messy, with lot's of potential leak risk and more importantly they are very small in scale. Yet wikileaks have managed to get a hold of that. One would think that if there are people who leak videos of US pilots shooting down journalists, there would be people leaking a far greater story, requiring a far larger conspiracy involving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. One would also think that if the government really was that great at covering up something a huge as 9/11 then they wouldn't make stupid mistakes like the ones that the conspiracy theorists seems to attach themselves too. In fact one would think that if they made such fundamental mistakes as those that seem to be used as a proof for the conspiracy then the likelihood of the conspiracy being leaked would increase by many many factors. Unpleasant to think about? Yes for the conspiracy theorists. A reality: Very sadly yes!