The official conspiracy theory of 9/11

[Vinyl-Taliban]

I'm sure a similar proportion wonder why the US hasn't bombed Ebola yet. That pesky foreign thing killing innocent women and children ...

please supply your evidence

A poll - ~1500 respondents - commissioned by Schuster and Harris Communications and conducted by North Bowling University, found that 3% of respondents believed Ebola should be dealt with with drone strikes.

[_sabotage_]

TGD,

You're asking for the system to change itself, and giving it no reason to.

I'm asking those at the bottom of the system to try a long term approach. And giving them a reason to.

I'm going to add a new conspiracy theory here (I don't think anyone is going to actually challenge any of the peer reviewed conclusions on WTC 7, nor say, holy shit, the official theory is impossible).

The new theory is highly implausible. It sounds utterly ridiculous and yet apparently, though I haven't yet checked, has extremely valid support. I think this can be a fun way for all of us to tackle a theory together and work towards conclusions in what likely will end in having the theory declared invalid.

So to begin:

Leo Emil Wanta claims he worked for Reagan, who by executive order 12333, mandated Wanta to destroy the Soviet economy.

Wanta was made trustor of $150b dollars. This was a loan to finance his activities. He claims Reagan's intentions for any profit off this were to go towards developing a high speed rail system in the US.

He says he used the $150b to buy up rubles on the international market. His targets were Soviet debtor nations who were willing to take 0.18-0.23 cents per ruble. He was then able to resell these to the Soviets for $1.08.

He claims to have amassed $27.5 trillion in this way.

That number makes his story seem extremely far fetched, and yet supposedly, a federal Judge awarded him $4.5 trillion, which was received in a documented transfer to the state reserve bank.

So what would it take to prove this?

[thegreekdog]

TGD,

You're asking for the system to change itself, and giving it no reason to.

I'm asking those at the bottom of the system to try a long term approach. And giving them a reason to.

Well yes, I have to give them a reason why my way is better than the current way.

You also have to give them a reason. It seems, at least in this thread (I'm sure you have other potential reasons to change), that your reason is "9/11 was an inside job." That is not a persuasive reason, whether you can prove it or not. I know you believe that the evidence is clear, but you are not going to be successful convincing anyone. It's been more than a decade since 9/11 and people like you have been unsuccessful. Even in the ardent anti-Bush years immediately preceding the election of President Obama, people like you have been unsuccessful.

In any event, you probably want to know how I'm going to give people a reason. I have no idea. I think something really bad needs to happen before people stop watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians and start paying attention to what their government is doing. Maybe it's a major war. Maybe it's a major economic collapse. I don't know. But people can't be bothered to change substantially yet.

[_sabotage_]

Something really bad has happened, and yet propaganda has kept people complacent, even convincing some people to call the less complacent citizens to be complacent.

A financial crash has happened. A terrible terrorist attack has happened. An ongoing war on drugs is happening.

But people, even smart lawyers who should know better, refuse to see it happening.

[thegreekdog]

Something really bad has happened, and yet propaganda has kept people complacent, even convincing some people to call the less complacent citizens to be complacent.

A financial crash has happened. A terrible terrorist attack has happened. An ongoing war on drugs is happening.

But people, even smart lawyers who should know better, refuse to see it happening.

Something worse. There were not enough people negatively affected by these two events.

[_sabotage_]

Pray tell, which point on the downward spiral will be enough?

Would a nuclear attack by the US on its own people be enough? Who would verify it? Who would get the message to the people that it was verified? Which new human traits would come into existence which lead the verification to cause action? How would this action have a hope of success since those it was verified against have control over all enforcement?

Why would the government ever give the public a chance to have enough? To verify it's had enough? To organize against the enough? To defeat the enough?

How would this be different from say the Syrian chemical attack? US says Syria, Syria says US, no conclusion is reached.

This isn't an NFL game, where both sides are playing by a set of rules on a set date. The government didn't give the citizens time to prepare against 9/11. The government has not given the citizens any proof of who did 9/11. The citizens are in no way organized to demand the truth for 9/11. The citizens have no means of investigating 9/11 and holding people accountable.


So what big bad thing are you waiting for and how will it in any way be different from say, millions of people who know they were cheated out of their money and the bankers were rewarded for it?

When Rumsfeld was asked about WTC 7 collapse, he replied that he hadn't heard of it. He was a director of the company which occupied most of WTC 7, a former member of the CIA which had offices in WTC 7 and had toured ground zero.

And most people haven't heard of its collapse.

If we can accept this is the level of information that people are making their conclusions from, why do you think "the people" would ever come to the conclusion that, "we've had enough"?

[thegreekdog]

Pray tell, which point on the downward spiral will be enough?

Would a nuclear attack by the US on its own people be enough? Who would verify it? Who would get the message to the people that it was verified? Which new human traits would come into existence which lead the verification to cause action? How would this action have a hope of success since those it was verified against have control over all enforcement?

Why would the government ever give the public a chance to have enough? To verify it's had enough? To organize against the enough? To defeat the enough?

How would this be different from say the Syrian chemical attack? US says Syria, Syria says US, no conclusion is reached.

This isn't an NFL game, where both sides are playing by a set of rules on a set date. The government didn't give the citizens time to prepare against 9/11. The government has not given the citizens any proof of who did 9/11. The citizens are in no way organized to demand the truth for 9/11. The citizens have no means of investigating 9/11 and holding people accountable.

So what big bad thing are you waiting for and how will it in any way be different from say, millions of people who know they were cheated out of their money and the bankers were rewarded for it?

Don't know. Why don't you answer this in the meantime:

You also have to give them a reason. It seems, at least in this thread (I'm sure you have other potential reasons to change), that your reason is "9/11 was an inside job." That is not a persuasive reason, whether you can prove it or not. I know you believe that the evidence is clear, but you are not going to be successful convincing anyone. It's been more than a decade since 9/11 and people like you have been unsuccessful. Even in the ardent anti-Bush years immediately preceding the election of President Obama, people like you have been unsuccessful.

[_sabotage_]

I am not trying to give people a reason to try to get the system to change itself, I'm trying to give people a reason to get off the system so that it no longer has the ability to carry out such actions.

Let me expand on that.

Currently there is a 3d printer that can print a house in 24 hours with no labour input. More and more designs will come out daily. A guy in the US printed a concrete castle. Designs will come out for maximum efficiency, for aesthetics, for environment.

Onsite materials exist. We improve on this. Soon, building a house will require no labour, very few offsite inputs, will be long-lasting and highly passive.

There are millions of people in the US employed in construction, but a few companies with a few people will be able to build a few machines that will displace all these people.

The price that people pay for their services will not greatly decrease because they will have a monopoly.

That means, at the moment millions of construction workers face loss of livelihood. But if they organized and invested in the technology, then it wouldn't be displacing them, it wouldn't be enriching the few, it wouldn't be placing them at the power of the state.

The technology would now belong to all of them. Because of their interest in their future, their organization, and their planning they will become more productive with less effort, and the same number of people would be getting their livelihood for the the service.

If they don't organize, then the government will cooperate with those firms and the construction workers will be a t the mercy of the system.

Which do you think the construction workers should do?

[mrswdk]

Paranoid Keanu Reaves says: what if those conspiracy theories were created by the CIA to distract people from the question of state abuse of extreme power and discredit opponents of the state?

The Holocaust deniers are victims of a similar conspiracy theory conspiracy - by wasting time arguing about whether or not Hitler really did kill the Jews, they are distracted from the question of the enormous curbs on free speech practiced in the EU (e.g. persecution of neo-Nazis in Germany and of Islamic figures in France) while simultaneously being delegitimized in the eyes of the rest of the public.

Options here:

• was created to distract people: abuse of power
• wasn't created to destract people and conspiracy theory correct: abuse of power by using government agents for operations they shouldn't be used for and tricking the american people into a war whilst being in a position to pull that final trigger
• no distraction and conspiracy theory incorrect: your point is irrelevant

So either way, there is no point to you mentioning this.You don't cover up abuse of power with more abuse of power by the same individuals. If you want to distract someone, you relay the track to someone else or you cover it up with different less bad crimes.

You didn't really read my post, huh? If spreading conspiracy theories successfully discredits people who question state power based on the conspiracy theory, then it is likely that other people who question state power will also be discredited by association and so will avoid questioning state power for fear of being seen as crazy.

[_sabotage_]

I might be reading you wrong, Mrs. Are you saying people shouldn't question the abuse of state power because through questioning the abuse of state power, they lose their credentials to question abuse of state power?

[mrswdk]

I'm saying the government could spread conspiracy theories so that those who cite the conspiracy theory when questioning state power discredit all questioning of state power by association.

'Haha, you're complaining about the relationship between government and the arms industry, just like those stupid tin foil hat guys do!'

[_sabotage_]

Again, the official theory is just a conspiracy theory, used to prevent the questioning of state power.

If you don't question that Osama did it, you won't question the efforts to take him out.

You can point out that the efforts were excessive and wasteful, then the media will treat you like Ron Paul. You are still a nut.

If you don't question the official theory about Saddam, then a state harboring a hotbed of terrorism with WMDs is something to be concerned about. If you do question how wasteful and excessive the actions were to take him out, you are told, government is incompetent. You are not allowed to point out that their actions can be seen as direct malice for profitability because you go back to being a conspiracy theorist.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Conspiracy theorists are often outright dismissed as nuts. In this case, I agree.

My question to anyone is: knowing that an event can alter perception guided by the media and government, how are you able to make informed decisions about the future and have them implemented?

By bringing to bear the power of reason and logic.

The arguement you have presented in this thread hangs, fundamentally, on an appeal to authority. Just because some scientists and/or professionals argue a particular point, we can't conclude that it's true. Further, the > 2000 such people who support the conspiracy are a minority amongst their peers. In addition, peer review is not infallible - it's the best of the worst ways to manage research. Why is there not more vocal support from their peers?

Most importantly, had any of this research found solid, irrefutable conclusions we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[_sabotage_]

It doesn't hang on authority, it hangs on known physical laws. Laws no one here is willing to discuss.

Why wouldn't we be having this conversation? Do you think the moment a physics teacher measured the free fall that the conspirators just turned themselves in?

[AndyDufresne]

It doesn't hang on authority, it hangs on known physical laws. Laws no one here is willing to discuss.

--Andy

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Conspiracy theorists are often outright dismissed as nuts. In this case, I agree.

My question to anyone is: knowing that an event can alter perception guided by the media and government, how are you able to make informed decisions about the future and have them implemented?

By bringing to bear the power of reason and logic.

The arguement you have presented in this thread hangs, fundamentally, on an appeal to authority. Just because some scientists and/or professionals argue a particular point, we can't conclude that it's true. Further, the > 2000 such people who support the conspiracy are a minority amongst their peers. In addition, peer review is not infallible - it's the best of the worst ways to manage research. Why is there not more vocal support from their peers?

Most importantly, had any of this research found solid, irrefutable conclusions we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[_sabotage_]

Because many of them have been fired for their work. Dismissed as insane.

Please, if you wish to discuss this with me, explain 110 feet of free fall through 81 structural steel columns. Otherwise, we aren't going anywhere.

If you only wish to pursue an illogical attack on authority, challenge Newton.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Because many of them have been fired for their work. Dismissed as insane.

Please, if you wish to discuss this with me, explain 110 feet of free fall through 81 structural steel columns. Otherwise, we aren't going anywhere.

If you only wish to pursue an illogical attack on authority, challenge Newton.

Why should I do that? I'm not a structural engineer or materials scientist. What do you do?

But you miss the point, and really why I needn't explain as you request: why do only ~ 2000 of all the world's scientists, engineers, architects etc support the consiparcy theory?

[_sabotage_]

I'm a civil engineer, currently finishing the co-op portion of my degree.

As I said, they get fired.

They take into account the free fall.

[Metsfanmax]

There was a lot of sensitive data in WTC 7. Particularly, the records for the money the US had used to buy up Russian infrastructure was set to reach its ten year audit.

So your hypothesis is that the US has a government capable of flying planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and killing thousands of people to justify two wars in the Middle East, and capable of keeping quiet the many thousands of people needed to make this conspiracy possible. But the best way it can come up with to delete some files is to blow up a skyscraper?

[_sabotage_]

There was a lot of sensitive data in WTC 7. Particularly, the records for the money the US had used to buy up Russian infrastructure was set to reach its ten year audit.

So your hypothesis is that the US has a government capable of flying planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and killing thousands of people to justify two wars in the Middle East, and capable of keeping quiet the many thousands of people needed to make this conspiracy possible. But the best way it can come up with to delete some files is to blow up a skyscraper?

No. My original hypothesis, when seeing the buildings come down, was: that's strange.

It was strange to me because the buildings collapsed under the path of greatest resistance. This doesn't take a scientist to understand that was strange.

I had not heard about building 7 and had kind of TGD's position of yep more excessive spending on bad policies to enrich friends.

I was in China and I downloaded a movie and it turned out to be Loose Change. I had not heard about it before, only hearing the occasional thing that questioned 9/11 at all, such as Hunter S Thompsons statements.

Loose Change brought up some questions and later I came across architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.

I had never heard the governments account of building 7, until about three years ago.

I always expected a reasonable explanation to these anomalies. But the more I checked, the more I realized there wasn't one.

And the reaction I got from people when I brought it up was extremely weird. Almost hate, derision, fear. They hadn't heard, didn't want to hear and wouldn't reply to any of the anomalies.

Like you. Please, as a physicist, explain why WTC 7 couldn't have experienced free fall for 110 feet.

If you can't or won't, then I have to assume you aren't willing to. It's basic physics.

There is no reasonable reason for NIST to have ensured that their explanation for the collapse was due to fire, unless telling a true account was prevented. There is no good reason to prevent the telling of a true account.

It didn't have to involve thousands of people. It's possible that very few people exist who could actually provide more than disparate details.

There are several accounts of people being warned. By itself, it proves nothing. There are statements that can be misconstrued. What can't be misconstrued is WTC 7 was in free fall. NIST said it was impossible. A physics teacher proved it was in free fall. NIST concurred. Therefore by NIST's own admission, their explanation is impossible.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not sure what your obsession with the free fall is. That would quite naturally occur if the force exerted by the upper part of the tower overwhelmed the structural support of the lower part of the tower it was falling into. And it wouldn't occur if there was non-negligible structural support fighting back against the fall. It is quite plausible that some parts of the collapse might experience acceleration similar to free fall and some other parts wouldn't, depending on the state of the building at various heights.

[_sabotage_]

Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing:

[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

Since the structural components were not there, it experienced free fall. Since the free fall was uniformly symmetrical, and would occur along the past of least resistance, this means that there were no structural components for 110 feet. But there were 82 of them. NIST states one of these was offset due to a lack of shear studs and abnormal thermal expansion. How about the other 81?

[Metsfanmax]

There might be "structural components" there but they might provide so little resistance to the fall that the fall would effectively look like a free fall. I really don't know the details in particular, I am just saying that as a physicist I find the argument to be plausible.

[waauw]

Most importantly, had any of this research found solid, irrefutable conclusions we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

That's actually false. Considering the history of the stock market, over-valuations and under-valuations are being proven all the time and yet many people keep on making mistakes. Why? Given many are uninformed or misformed, however just as in conspiracy theories there is a very big psychological factor. It has been scientifically proven that most human beings suffer from normalcy bias and optimism bias. People refuse to acknowledge harsh truths because of this. It happens all the time.

Additionally there is a bad reputation haunting the name 'conspiracy theory'. By merely sticking that label on a theory, many people will assume the theory to be false even before reading into it. Many conspiracy theories have either been disproven or never accepted by the general public. So purely by association with other theories, which have nothing to do with it, credibility can be reduced.

Ofttimes 'solid, irrefutable conclusions' are just the same as 'mainstream'. Even though history has proven over and over again that main stream populations can be wrong too.