Just check this out. Kind of interesting. And no not so much about 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRuoL0UYG-Y
Fixed for ease of clickiness.
Woah, didn’t know it would do that…oh well.
Interesting. The guy talks about the word conspiracy as though something by that name is assumed to be untrue. He’s got that confused with conspiracy theory, which is generally associated with less-solid assumptions about things, though could also be a genuine (solid) theory about a real conspiracy. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, which appears to be the main topic, indeed seems to have been real. Clearly a conspiracy. There are tons of real conspiracies out there.
And there are tons of made-up ones, like all that 9/11 nonsense. The 9/11 stuff is fun to believe in, but it only works if you refuse to listen to the tons of factual evidence that goes against almost every detail of the theories I’ve heard so far. I’ve even watched TV specials about it, where the 9/11 conspiracy claims are taken apart one by one.
So yah, of course there are conspiracies. The smallpox-infected blankets, though I haven’t studied on it, would seem to be one of the most heinous ones in US history, though it might have to compete with all the other atrocities and lies that were perpetrated against the people who lived here first.
Haha I like how the guy talks. All of his ends of sentences sound the same…
When talking about actual content, this video seemed more or less legit. I don’t think many people believe that conspiracy can’t happen though, they just don’t believe in the ones that sound preposterous to them and are completely different from the original story they once heard.
I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. But he lost all credibility in his list of conspiracies when he mentioned the Kennedy Assassination which has been factually disproved on numerous occasions. When you shoot a human in the head despite what you might expect, the head moves toward the gun because when the bullet exits the other side it takes with it a stream of brain gunk that acts like a rocket and propels the head toward the gun.
But when the original story is put up by the conspirators themselves…
I’ve heard of a few of those things and yeah I believe most of them were conspiracies set up by the government… 9/11 or the JFK assassination. The facts are too huge to cover up. Like the bouncing bullet thing in the JFK assassination is just stupid. And that the twin towers were stable for hours then went down like a controlled explosion, and there was no passenger plane that flew into the pentagon, just a US spy plane crashing into the part of the of the building that was unoccupied. I dont really believe any of 9/11 was an acot of terror from a different country. The US government is stuffed up.
I’m not into conspiracies… all I have to say is “Occam’s razor, bitches”.
That being said… your explanation defies basic physics, namely the law of conservation of momentum.
…unless you’re suggesting we’re all walking around with rockets in our heads, in which case your explanation is just downright insane.
Not if you aren’t in possession of them in the first place. For you to believe 9/11 was a US government conspiracy (as opposed to the terrorist conspiracy it was), you have to do two things, both require a lot of intentional lack of thought:
- Ignore laws of physics, witness accounts, expert testimony, etc. etc.
You don’t like the way the twin towers went down? What’s your explanation and reasoning for it? Hint: Look at some blueprints of the building first to at least understand what the architects and other experts are saying first. The towers did not go down like a controlled explosion. Show me a video that illustrates your point. In almost all controlled demo videos I’ve seen, you can see all the charges going off throughout the building to help it to fall in the desired way. The towers went straight down, spewing deadly debris in every direction, with no sign of charges going off other than the massive fires that had an obvious cause. No sign of any other forms of demolition, and no need for them either.
Dozens of eyewitnesses describe seeing a very large passenger plane fly into the Pentagon. Yes, there are lots of people in that area all day long. The fact that they didn’t have cameras in their hands doesn’t change what they all report seeing, and how their descriptions all agree. What happens to aluminum in a fire?
- You have to believe the Bush Administration, or some subset of it, was clever enough to devise and execute their plan, nearly flawlessly. If they could do that, how come they’ve blundered in so many other things?
Penn and Teller did a bull shit show about this subject. Using a cantaloupe with a fiberglassed shell on the outside, to simulate a human head, they shot it with a rifle. Sure enough, the cantaloupe moves towards the gun.
When the bullet passes entirely through the brain cavity of the skull, there is an expulsion of brain gunk from the far side of the head which propels the head toward the gun. If you don’t believe me try it out.
But I was just using that as one of many examples that debunks JFK conspiracy theories.
Is it not just as crazy to believe the government was not a conspirator?
I remain agnostic. The evidence is not there to prove nor disprove the government’s story.
The burden of proof is on those who claim a conspiracy. And you can’t disprove a negative. Bad argument. There’s a difference between “healthy skepticism”, and going off the deep end. Psychotic meds can work wonders, but you have to remember to TAKE them! 
Conspiracy theories make good movies, but most of them are too far fetched for me to take seriously. If you hold a job with the government, you soon realize they’re too uncoordinated to pull off such elaborate stunts as the ones proposed by some theories.
Yeah, I should’ve stated it the other way. Is it not just as crazy to believe the government’s story? The burden of proof has not been met.
Would it really take that many people to to pull off a conspiracy? When you have a small group, it’s easier to not mess up.
Are you assuming that I’m siding against the conspiracy believers?
Because I’m not.
I simply stated how they seem to think.
What’s a conspiracy believer? Conspiracies are real. It’s the ones with crackpot non-evidence (and web sites to back them up) that you hopefully don’t believe, unless their arguments actually hold up against the objective facts in the situation. Example: Most of the 9/11 “lie” arguments require the collection of certain specific bits of information while ignoring many others that are directly related.
But all I was saying is that the “official” story, if it comes from someone who is suspect in a conspiracy, must be questioned in the first place.
Gilby: It’s possible I just don’t want to consider that our government (excuse me, Bush administration or subset thereof) would intentionally cause so much death and destruction on our own soil. But if you think of it that way, why not? We’ve done many, many times worse in places populated with “brown people” so it only takes a little creative thought. It’s just that I don’t see the need. Those terrorist groups were already there, and already had their destructive agenda. The 1993 attempt on the WTC is just one example of their long history of trying to bring down American infrastructure. I don’t know that there was as much political need, way back then, to think we needed help in pointing the nation toward a war in the Middle East. Heck. We had just gotten out of one.
Got to post against John Foss here cause he is really overlooking information here and being closed minded.
Watch me disprove. Laws of Physics! Hey John guess what for a building to fall at free fall speeds it had to use ALL of gravity’s energy. This is a fact. Therefor no energy could go into actually destorying the building. This is a hard fact for people to get their heads around. But the more damage created by falling objects the more the object has to slow down. Physics just proved bombs were used to create the damage, not a free falling body.
Witness accounts??? Um are you ignoring the people that ran out of the building yelling bombs in the basement. People that were injuried talking to reporters about being blown upwards while in the 2nd or 3rd level of the basement? Look it up.
expert testimony?? Um both parties have to ignore this. Since experts also say it was the US government. Engineers and physics professors say it was done with Bombs and stuff too. So really this whole side can’t be used.
John, John, John, again only uses information you want. Reports also interviewed people that said a helecopter went into the side of the building, and a missile and a plane. So guess what? We can’t use any “eyewitness” accounts here. Since so many people said different things.
Or just that the american people were dumb enough, too heart broken, or to pissed off, to think for themselves. How many other times has this country been fooled, or, mislead into war. (Um, we knew about, and were given warning, about pearl harpor attacks before they happened, gulf of tolken before Vietem.)
Ok seriously. Doesn’t seem so far fetched. By the way, building 7 fell just like a controlled dem. You can see the crimp in the building then a free fall collapse.
(That was easy)
p.s. Now am I being closed minded? I don’t think a closed minded person would throw out an entire area of debate because eyewitnesses said both ways. I think that’s an open minded way of going about things. Leave to which is no help, alone. However people will be like, I don’t want to address it since I don’t have an answer. I assure you, any comment you give against me I have an answer too that doesn’t controdict a different answer. I’ll give you an explain of the opposite from terrorist believers.
EXAMPLE:
WTC 7 came down because of an area on one side of the building that was torn apart. They say 10 stories by 100 some feet across. Maybe more.
Ok… That was their report, not mine.
But… If such damage was done on just one side to cause the collapse in the first place, why didn’t it tilt that way. The other side would have been undamaged. A bit of a cross of information there. (By the way don’t use the whole, “but there was soo much mass above the building it had to come down uniformly”. Since that doesn’t work at all here since no plane hit this building -that’s usually what the terrorist believers bank off of on the other two cases-. Things will always fall faster through nothing. Even the slightest resistance on one side will cause it too fall more slowly.)
I sure wish the multi-quote button would work for me; I have to do all this by hand…
Okay, I’ll back you up on that one. How can a falling building use either more or less of “gravity’s energy”? It can only use what it’s got. What it’s got is a huge amount of stored energy (110-story building vs. gravity). Weaken the building enough, either through fire, or bombs or both, and that energy will be released. What’s the point about the speed at which the building fell? Don’t all large building/structures fall at exactly the same speed?
No kidding. Are you saying there were no fully-fueled airplanes or bombs in use? No energy at all? What made the towers fall down, then?
I’m pretty sure it was a building falling down, not a bomb. Am I reading you right?
If you’re saying there was a bomb (okay, many bombs), were they delivered by the airplanes? Why use airplanes if you’ve got bombs? Remember, a very large bomb was tried before. What was done differently this time? Why not just use planes loaded with fuel? I’m surprised the buildings stayed up as long as they did under the circumstances.
Links, please. Got any links on non-conspiracy theory sites? Or were these witnesses only interested in talking to conspiracy theory people?
Side? What side? Links, please.
How many? How many saw a helicopter and didn’t see a passenger jet? How many saw an unmanned drone, small plane or other non-passenger jet? Links, please.
Dumb enough I believe.
Except for the explosions going off. Controlled demolitions start with a timed BANG-BANG-BANG of all the charges going off. There were no charges. I’m sure someone is making charges of charges, but wasn’t the building damaged enough to fall on its own? Why does it have to need help?
WTC 7 was collateral damage. Assuming outside terrorists did it, they weren’t interested in that building anyway. It just got hit by too much debris from the big ones.
Either that or dumb, and I wouldn’t call you dumb. I think you like the idea of a bunch of stuff happening that we’re not supposed to know about. But I still don’t get what the true story is supposed to be then. This is usually missing from the great conspiracy arguments.
I would if 100 people who were actually there said one thing, and three people who couldn’t prove they were there said something else. I don’t know if that’s the case, but it’s the impression I’ve gotten from all the stuff I’ve read (not recently) and the recent TV special I watched. I think it was on the History channel.
I never took an actual physics class. Everything I know about physics was learned through circus arts. That said, I don’t get how being hit by an airplane vs. being hit by a bunch of building parts changes the mass of a building. Same mass. Why did it fall down straight? I don’t know. I also don’t care because I don’t think that building was even a target, and everything that happened to it was random. Did ten thousand firemen and construction guys ever find any evidence of bombs in all that wreckage? Or were they all in on the consipracy?
I just did some brief Googling to see if I could find a web site that’s not biased with an agenda that stuff is being hidden. Didn’t see any other than some that listed straight numbers and timelines, death tolls, etc. Lots of nutty stuff though. This Wikipedia article describes the collapse of the Twin Towers in what you might consider to be the “official” version. Give it a read and see if any of it makes sense to you. It also has a section about WTC 7 in there.
One fun site I looked at was a typical example of the bad information being used to support some of the conspiracy theories. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has a list of 11 “remarkable facts” about the events. Except their facts are crap:
From #1: “These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7’s collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions.”
But not compared to the collapse of a building that was struck by the twin towers falling down next to it? Their comparison model is controlled demolition becuase that’s what people have seen. How many buildings like that have fallen down for other reasons, such as massive damage from falling debris?
#2: “Fire has never — prior to or after 9/11 — caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition.”
Ignoring the fact that it already has been explained by other reasons that make sense, these fires were allowed to burn out of control. There was no way to fight them, or no safe way, in the case of WTC 7. This does not usually happen in skyscraper fires. And again, what does freefall speed have to do with what causes a collapse?
#3: “The WTC steel, which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives, was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.”
Utter nonsense. Though I doubt any of the steel was shipped overseas (how could that be cost-effective?) I do know that some of it is a few miles from my house, as part of a 9/11 Memorial at our state fair grounds. Massive beams from the tall towers. Liars.
#9: “Some of the alleged 9/11 “suicide hijackers” are still alive and well, according to the BBC and The Guardian.” I assume these are the guys from the fourth plane, the one they ended up not hijacking, or not even boarding? Because everyone in the three planes we know about is toast.
This is fun.
This Wikipedia article also gives a good description of what people are thinking in the demolition scenarios: