World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

People like to believe conspiracy theories because they can't bear to face the possibility that some crazy blokes hijacked some planes and killed thousands of people without warning. They'd rather believe the devil they know is responsible (the government). That's simply not the case.
 
nikebee said:
It's scary how closed minded some people are on here.

This more than likely will turn out to be hogwash, but for you may as well entertain the fact it could be true as quite simply we don't know the answer.

The fact that the article has many notable scientific bodies that have put forward their thoughts, ideas and given input into that article.

I fear too many people see 9/11 or WTC these days and instantly thing the story will be baloney or think "OMG CONSPIRACY!... Yeah right! :rolleyes:".
Click to expand...

It's scary how people are so easily misled on here, thankfully it's just the minority. :rolleyes:

leaskovski said:
Anyone else think the mods should do a flat right ban on 9/11 threads?
Click to expand...

this.
 
aardvark said:
seems like you are the closed-minded one here - where they are from is irrelevant, the paper should be judged on the evidence alone, which is very weak.
Click to expand...

jonarob said:
People like to believe conspiracy theories because they can't bear to face the possibility that some crazy blokes hijacked some planes and killed thousands of people without warning. They'd rather believe the devil they know is responsible (the government). That's simply not the case.
Click to expand...

mcast123 said:
It's scary how people are so easily misled on here, thankfully it's just the minority. :rolleyes:



this.
Click to expand...

People like you are just proving Nikebee's point. You haven't put any of your own thought into this. It's all very well looking at some post on a forum and naysaying it carte blanche, but even when it's backed up by a dozen or so scientists from esteemed institutions? What I'd like to know is this - what stops you from taking ten seconds to think that maybe there could be something in this? I'm not talking about a full-blown acceptance, but even the shard of an idea that there could be more to it than Al-Quaeda and what you're told by the media.
 
the thing about conspiracy theories - they only go for the really famous events, events that everybody saw on tv and knows they are true (9/11, moon landing, jfk shooting). they then try to claim the fact that they 'know' something that everybody else missed, in an attempt to prove that they are somehow superior to the average person and to bolster their low self esteem. Of course, logical minded people know something they don't - that they are idiots.
 
Lysander said:
People like you are just proving Nikebee's point. You haven't put any of your own thought into this. It's all very well looking at some post on a forum and naysaying it carte blanche, but even when it's backed up by a dozen or so scientists from esteemed institutions? What I'd like to know is this - what stops you from taking ten seconds to think that maybe there could be something in this? I'm not talking about a full-blown acceptance, but even the shard of an idea that there could be more to it than Al-Quaeda and what you're told by the media.
Click to expand...

How do you know if I've put my own thought into this? I, like anyone, LOVE a good conspiracy theory, but this one is rubbish. It's completely implausible. Don't you dare accuse me of not thinking.
 
aardvark said:
seems like you are the closed-minded one here - where they are from is irrelevant, the paper should be judged on the evidence alone, which is very weak.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry? How am I closed minded? I've read the article and don't particularly think anything in it holds any weight and don't believe that the article proves anything.

However I've had the balls to say that

a) I've read the article rather than joining the "OMG it's not a conspiracy you fool" and "9/11 - BAN ALL TALK" brigades unlike the majority of posters here

b) I've actually entertained the fact that the article could be true, as lets face it we have no conclusive proof that it is a conspiracy, but no conclusive proof that says it wasn't. As pointed out the article has many reputable scientific bodies behind it. Again I'd argue that I doubt many posters here have read the article or read the article before posting in here.

c) I'm not part of the sheepish heard that have gathered that are turning around and blanketly saying everything brought up about 9/11 is a load of tosh. I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist myself, but I at least entertain the fact it could be true, read the article or watch the video before I make my own mind up instead of just saying "NO! NOT TRUE! like everyone else.

Lysander said:
People like you are just proving Nikebee's point. You haven't put any of your own thought into this. It's all very well looking at some post on a forum and naysaying it carte blanche, but even when it's backed up by a dozen or so scientists from esteemed institutions? What I'd like to know is this - what stops you from taking ten seconds to think that maybe there could be something in this? I'm not talking about a full-blown acceptance, but even the shard of an idea that there could be more to it than Al-Quaeda and what you're told by the media.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

Occasionally, and I mean very occasionally there are some decent topics about 9/11 on here and they provoke some good discussion and some interesting thoughts. But that only happens when people actually have the ability to judge the facts for themselves rather than 99% of the forums just spouting nonsense, nay-saying and following the heard mentality.

dmpoole, I fear your post may have been better suited for Speakers Corner mate. As at least the people in there can at least give an argument that is noticeable, or at the very least formulate their own opinion before posting.

Threads like this in GD often turn out to be like your trying to talk to a 6 year old child... "No! No! I don't believe you! No... I DONT CARE I'M RIGHT... I'M NOT READING THAT! NO! NO! NO!"
 
Mulder said:
Heck, while we're at it why don't we just censor all conspiracy threads. It's easier that way, we wouldn't need to think about anything, just swallow verbatim the carp the mainstream media reports.
Click to expand...
Look Spookie ;), I dont have an issue with conspiracy theories, infact I enjoy a good one, but the reason I sugested a flat right ban on 9/11 threads is because we seem to go round in circles with them and get no where. Just the same old stuff comes out and the same old replies get posted.

Can we have some new ones please? :D
 
Lysander said:
People like you are just proving Nikebee's point. You haven't put any of your own thought into this. It's all very well looking at some post on a forum and naysaying it carte blanche, but even when it's backed up by a dozen or so scientists from esteemed institutions? What I'd like to know is this - what stops you from taking ten seconds to think that maybe there could be something in this? I'm not talking about a full-blown acceptance, but even the shard of an idea that there could be more to it than Al-Quaeda and what you're told by the media.
Click to expand...

ok then, lets look at it - i'm a scientist, from a well respected chemistry department, just like the authors. The journal is not one of the well respected journals - all journals are not equal, there are only a certain number that are highly reguarded.
Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean you can trust their opinion without examining the facts. I work around scientists and dr's and professors all day (and i am one myself) and while some of them are highly intelligent, some of them are morons.
i've read the full paper and understand it.
They don't have the evidence to back up their claims.
To quote: 'The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).'
These techniques, all of which i've used, are not sufficient to conclude that there was a synthetic 'superthermite' or commercial 'nanothermite' present.
All they have shown is that dust from the collapse of the buildings showed some thermic properties - big deal, any mixture that contains a little aluminium and iron oxide (rust), two very common materials, would show the same.
 
Lysander said:
People like you are just proving Nikebee's point. You haven't put any of your own thought into this. It's all very well looking at some post on a forum and naysaying it carte blanche, but even when it's backed up by a dozen or so scientists from esteemed institutions? What I'd like to know is this - what stops you from taking ten seconds to think that maybe there could be something in this? I'm not talking about a full-blown acceptance, but even the shard of an idea that there could be more to it than Al-Quaeda and what you're told by the media.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't assume by peoples lack of debate that they've not done any research. In my case I've learnt not to waste my time when confronted by stupidity and lack of real research.
 
FosterK said:
Used in welding? A skyscraper with a metal frame? Fragments of this found in the debris? Wowzers.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Edit: Get out my head int :(
Click to expand...



It has already been stated that welders were repairing the building in the weeks up to the incident.
I am embarrassed to even post in this thread.
Anybody that thinks the tower was blown up in some kind of pre arranged conspiracy with the Terrors is quite clearly Mental.
 
Ok, so it's the idea that George W Bush's government sanctioned individuals flying two planes into one of the most famous landmarks in the world, then with the entire world watching used explosives to ensure the building collapsed. Why, given the fact that this single event has been undoubtedly been studied more than any other collapsed building in history are people willing to give credence to any scrap of evidence which might prove such a conspiracy took place.

I am open minded. Like most people posting in this thread I fully comprehend that corruption may exist within any government. However, logical reasoning defines that while I keep an open mind, I will not believe nor even consider any evidence of such an atrocity until it has been investigated thoroughly. To do otherwise is the essence of gullibility.
 
mmj_uk said:
They never mentioned WTC7 in the official report though, it was such a minor thing I guess not worthy of investigating how a skycraper (like 2 others on the day) could fall perfectly vertically and at freefall speed due to a few office fires.
Click to expand...

That is what I love about conspiracy theorists. The blatant lies used to try and support their rubbish. WTC7 had a bit more damage than "a few office fires" and had been left to burn untended for many hours before collapsing. The freefall speed bit has been rubbished so many times too, especially considering that for it to be true parts of the buildings would have had to fall even faster, pray tell what was the accellerating force?

Not to mention the time, effort and manpower required to wire 3 massive buildings for demolition would be noticed...
 
nikebee said:
I'm sorry? How am I closed minded? I've read the article and don't particularly think anything in it holds any weight and don't believe that the article proves anything.

However I've had the balls to say that

a) I've read the article rather than joining the "OMG it's not a conspiracy you fool" and "9/11 - BAN ALL TALK" brigades unlike the majority of posters here
Click to expand...

I've also now read the article and the suggestion is that there were materials with thermic properties which as both aardvark and the paper itself say occur fairly commonly. It even highlights welding as a possible cause which a steel structure of any notable size will have had done.

nikebee said:
b) I've actually entertained the fact that the article could be true, as lets face it we have no conclusive proof that it is a conspiracy, but no conclusive proof that says it wasn't. As pointed out the article has many reputable scientific bodies behind it. Again I'd argue that I doubt many posters here have read the article or read the article before posting in here.
Click to expand...

I'm doubtless being picky here but you've entertained the possibility that it could be true, not the fact. In asking to prove it wasn't a conspiracy you are asking for proof of a negative which is a whole lot more difficult in such matters - just because there is not conclusive proof that there is not a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that more credence should be given to the preposition that it is.

nikebee said:
c) I'm not part of the sheepish heard that have gathered that are turning around and blanketly saying everything brought up about 9/11 is a load of tosh. I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist myself, but I at least entertain the fact it could be true, read the article or watch the video before I make my own mind up instead of just saying "NO! NOT TRUE! like everyone else.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that entertaining the possibility is fine as is making your own mind up but you shouldn't look to it as being true without question either.
 
Whats the harm of being a little open minded about these sorts of things ?
 
RDM said:
I think it means "Believing every nutjob internet site with a conspiracy theory and ignoring most of reality". At a guess. Maybe. :D
Click to expand...
Maybe not being so quick to dismiss theorys just because they said crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom