World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

Inquisitor said:
All perfectly valid criticisms of 9/11 conspiracy theories that I wouldn't hesitate to use myself. However, none of them justify the out of hand dismissal any new contradictory evidence.
Click to expand...

OK, how about the fact that the authors of the report themselves point out several other mundane reasons as to why it could be there yet all the focuse is on the "OMG Thermite!". Which couldn't even be used to bring down the building in the first place.

It gets a bit tiresome after a while especially when you have people blindly holding on to evidence that has already been quite comprehensively debunked.
 
likwid said:
Wait, what?

I haven't alluded to the possibility that no evidence will ever come to light. I've argued that any evidence needs to be investigated before it is deemed credible.
Click to expand...

Well the point of contention here is that you said evidence presented in support of conspiracy theories never holds against scrutiny, which you then qualified by saying that what you meant is that it never has in the past. I was simply wondering why you said that, as it may be true but it's not really relevant to the discussion.
 
Inquisitor said:
Well the point of contention here is that you said evidence presented in support of conspiracy theories never holds against scrutiny. You then qualified that assertion by saying that what you meant is that it never has in the past. I was simply wondering why you said that, as it may be true but it's not really relevant to the argument.
Click to expand...
You're not making sense.

My original assertion was valid, I never in any way alluded to the feasibility of evidence existing in the future. I only had to qualify it due to your apparent lack of comprehension of the English language, hence the simple demonstration. No offense but I can't think of a nice way to put that point across.
 
aardvark said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is an excellent observation

and it parallels when people say they are re-incarnated from famous historical figures..its always bloody julius caesar or nefertiti...its never Bob the farm worker, or cecil man at arms or ethel the cook

loonies are loonies who prefer their own delusions to facing facts
 
ringo747 said:
I think its all very interesting and everyone has their own take on what happened but one thing i do remember reading was that some relatives of the top government official was working on the lift doing repairs in the weeks before hand. The claim was that they lined the insides of the lift shaft with explosives. I refuse to take sides as we just cannot know for sure but it does make an interesting debate! Personally I cannot see how a plane strike can bring a building of this size down so fast. The other building collapsing with the others beside it still standing is just weird.
Click to expand...

Can I point you in the direction of this paper:

http://www.exodus2006.com/911seffen.htm

And my original post:

p4radox said:
One of my lecturers Dr Keith Seffen wrote a paper on exactly how the towers could easily have collapsed after being hit by the aeroplanes. It explains in a perfectly reasonable, mathematic, peer reviewed fashion how fast progressive collapse was perfectly possible without the need for explosives.

It was a well received paper in the engineering community, and pretty much conclusively demonstrated that the conspiracy theories were a load of crap.

In return for this paper he received a bombardment of hate mail, death threats, and threats of legal action against him and the university. Despite the fact that it's a politically neutral paper, peer reviewed and based on solid well-established theories, the armchair scientists and crackpot conspiracy theorists still reject it. Just google the guy's name and you'll see dozens of hate-filled forum threads.

Gives you an idea of the kind of people that push the crazy theories...
Click to expand...

It's an in-depth paper, but the main conclusion is that fast, progressive collapse is to be expected under the circumstances.
 
I'm as open minded as anyone, and actually do believe there is more to the WTC than is let on. Not lizardmen stuff, but perhaps there was more political motivation than just a bunch of peed off Taleban.

Anyway.. Thermite is just rust+aluminium. There was a lot of steel, with rust, and a lot of aluminium in those towers..
 
and I always maintain...secrets cannot be kept..governments are too big and too unwieldy

if they cannot keep secret the fgact that the then president of the usa shagged somebody in the oval office, how does anybody expect to keep secret the fact that the govt had thousands of their citizens murdered..it simply wouldnt happen

hell we can even find out when anti terror raids are going to take place because some numpty cannot put a cover sheet on his report..yet people think giant secrets are kept from the public
 
likwid said:
You're not making sense.

My original assertion was valid, I never in any way alluded to the feasibility of evidence existing in the future. I only had to qualify it due to your apparent lack of comprehension of the English language, hence the simple demonstration. No offense but I can't think of a nice way to put that point across.
Click to expand...

Well your assertion – that the evidence in question never holds up to scrutiny – was given in the present simple tense. Given the context, this should be interpreted as a factual statement about the nature of this evidence, irrespective of the time frame:

Statements about rules of nature and the way the world is are in the present simple tense. - The sun sets in the West. - Most babies learn to speak when they are about two years old. - Water boils at 100° Celsius.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_tense#English

If you only meant previous evidence, you shouldn't have said it in this way, especially when we're considering a new example.

Anyway, I think this argument has exhausted itself now.
 
Last edited:
nikebee said:
I'm not asking for proof in either matter, I'm merely saying the fact that while the thoughts of it is a conspiracy hasn't been ruled out you can't say that every article about a conspiracy is false (whether this one is or not is neither here no there as far as I'm concerned, but if your asking I'm part of the "this article is probably a load of tosh" group).

I'm not trying to give conspiracy theories more weight simply because we cannot rule some of them out, I'm just trying to get my point across that whilst we cannot be sure about either matter it's only fair that we look into each side of it fairly whether it's 9/11 or the Moon Landing.

semi-pro you seem to echo my thoughts, just the other way around. I don't want people to look at a conspiracy theory and give it more weight, but I don't want them to look at the "truth" and give it more weight in an arguement in matters that we cannot be 100% sure on.

If a conspiracy theory is a load of crap, then that's all it is. But I'm just annoyed and worried that too many people in this world don't bother to make up their own minds on many matters and seem to just follow the crowd.

I myself believe 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and believe just like the vast majority do that it was a terrorist attack - however I also have an element of doubt that we are not being told the whole truth by our Governments and while I believe that I'll continue to look at these conspiracy theories and weigh them up in my head and see if any of them hold any merit.
Click to expand...

It seems we largely agree but you're correct we are probably starting from different points. I don't think the article is nonsense in that I fully believe there would be a thermic compound found but the conclusions that have been highlighted (that it could be thermite or similar is overemphasised) when the more prosaic explanation of welding and the combination of steel + aluminium (tower + plane) would be sufficient to make it present.

My major problem with conspiracy theories is as it always has been the simultaneous credence that is given to the conspirators being able to control everything in that sphere and yet unable to prevent a few dedicated souls from discovering the 'truth'. I don't think it works both ways, there are probably conspiracy theories with some truth to them but I take the route emphasised by Sherlock Holmes when he said (paraphrased) "that we insensibly try to twist theories to fit (known) facts when we have inadequate data to formulate the theory". It's quite possible, even probable, that we do not know everything there is to know about the September 11th attacks but the basic premise that it was a terrorist attack seems to hold true so the rest of the conspiracy theories seem a little bit pointless taken from that simple idea.
 
Originally i would have thought more into the explosives in the tower scenario.

But since people have started claiming things from remote controlled planes, HAARP, alien laser beams, nuclear bomb under the towers and so on, I've change my opinion.

Surprisingly it was something Evan said "Isn't it more believable that the American government knew about the attacks and let them happen, rather then it being a inside job?" That is now my opinion on this.
 
Teki187 said:
Originally i would have thought more into the explosives in the tower scenario.

But since people have started claiming things from remote controlled planes, HAARP, alien laser beams, nuclear bomb under the towers and so on, I've change my opinion.

Surprisingly it was something Evan said "Isn't it more believable that the American government knew about the attacks and let them happen, rather then it being a inside job?" That is now my opinion on this.
Click to expand...

Evan who?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom