Comment by Kris on May 13, 2010 at 11:15am

That's a conspiracy theory and it has nothing to do with religion or lack of thereof. I'm just speaking for myself, but I have looked into that particular conspiracy theory. I obviously won't debunk it point-by-point, because it's such a huge topic, but much of the "real" evidence you're referring to isn't very real at all. Most of the claims supporting your theory are misconceptions, or downright lies.

Comment by Kris on May 13, 2010 at 11:50am

And to get on your comparison between the atheism/religion debate, I disagree that they are similar.
With the religion/atheism debate, atheism is obviously the default position. "I don't believe it until it is proven to me" is the general position an atheist would take. This doesn't mean that he or she believes that there is absolutely no god, it simply means that they are not convinced.
With the 9/11 conspiracy, things get a little trickier. There isn't really a default position, because both of the positions require evidence. In such a situation, Occam's razor is a useful tool. The simpler explanation is more likely to be the correct explanation. On one side, a couple of terrorists hijacked a couple of planes and ran them into buildings, on the other side, there is a huge conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people, all of whom have successfully kept it completely secret. Considering the fact that a secret among 10+ people is highly likely to get out, a secret among thousands of people being contained, is almost ridiculous.
So I would say that in this debate, the default position would be position one.

Comment by Peter H. Boling on May 13, 2010 at 11:53am

Truth can't be debunked. If you're talking about the debunking 9-11 website, it is extremely poorly informed on most of the issues it discusses, and the areas where it is correct (debunking no plane theory / space laser theory / some other crazy theory), are really just the fringes of the movement (and fringes that are rightfully debunked, as they have no basis in fact).
I have read this entire site, and I'd venture to say that it takes about 500 hours:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

They also debunk the same myths, and are all about real rational analysis.
http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/disclaimer.html

Comment by Peter H. Boling on May 13, 2010 at 12:05pm

I disagree that Occam's razor is useful (at least in the way you use it). In an attempt to arrive at an answer to what is simplest, you have unwittingly simplified the variables, and not accounted for many factors. Germ theory sounded complex at first, but to atheists who can see through the "evil spirit" explanation we understand how germ theory is in reality simpler. The same goes for evolution, and lots of other things. Arriving at the conclusion is often extremely complicated... but the truth in quite simple once understood. This is why Occam's razor is pointless in debating between to positions.

Comment by Peter H. Boling on May 13, 2010 at 12:22pm

I will need to explain myself further on the debate between atheism and religion vs. terrorist / false-flag.
1) Religion uses propaganda to promote the idea that a good life without it is impossible, thereby discrediting, devaluing and incapacitating atheism as a valid thought process. To most people atheists are crazy because of this propaganda.

9-11 is the subject of immense propaganda. The Popular Mechanics 9-11 debunking article is an excellent example of this, and has been thoroughly debunked.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

2) Lies: All religion has to lie about origins and interpret facts to their liking in order to maintain their power and control. Most of the people doing this do not think they are lying, and truly think they are helping support a greater cause.

The people involved in the false-flag attack also have the power to get many of their underlings to wage an information war on their behalf. The people doing the waging think they are supporting a great cause (The war on terror and defending the USA!) and are not aware in their own involvement of the cover-up.

Due to compartmentalization of information (only a handful at the top knew what was really happening) thousands were involved in the attacks. It is clear from the evidence that the hijackers were unaware that they were on a suicide mission.

You have blindly placed your faith in the scientists batting for the government. Greening said, as an example: "Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls, not the interiors of collapsing buildings". Actually Newton's Third law applies to everything on earth (with appropriate considerations of course), even buildings as they collapse, in fact especially buildings. It should be a textbook example, of the laws of physics in action. And it is, unless you accept the government's version of the story.
These scientists are engaged in a back and forth discussion. Anyone reading the discussion can see who is winning and who is losing.
http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html

Comment by Peter H. Boling on May 13, 2010 at 12:28pm

Before anyone else comments saying 9-11 truth is false... :) I'm going to post this, so they actually have something that can be discussed. I am hopeful that more atheists will use the critical thinking skills they obviously have, and shred through the propaganda.

9-11 is a serious, somber subject. Many people died, and as a result of the hasty conclusions we all drew thanks to non-stop media coverage, millions more have died in wars in the Middle East.

The subject deserves respect and thoughtful study.

According to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

The entire February 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist is devoted to papers about why humans fail to recognize the truth of 9-11.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/179

Thermite and nano-thermite have been found in the dust of the WTC. The dust has been analyzed by many distinguished scientists, and the papers published in a respected chemical physics journal:
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/0...
A simpler explanation of the findings for the non Chemical Physicist:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Other links about the thermite:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20998
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html

Pakistani ISI are the ones who paid the 9-11 hijackers at least $100,000 for the attack on 9-11.
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/05/pakistani-smoking-gun-...
The US Government funds the ISI (article specifically about post 9-11 funding, but if you watch "9-11 Press for Truth" they talk extensively about the pre-9-11 funding of ISI by our government):
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/CIA-paid-millions-of-do...
The conclusion I come to AFTER reading/watching the evidence is that essentially our tax dollars paid for the 9-11 attack.
The other question here is why would they want to get paid immediately before blowing themselves up? Answer: they didn't think it was a suicide mission. Reading witness testimony of their deportment before and during the flights makes this clear.

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmunds has come forward with details indicating that the Bin Laden worked for the US up until the day of 9/11:
http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/07/bombshell-bin-laden-worked-for-u...

Flight 93 was shot down (there are lots of other sites with evidence, but sometimes witness testimony is more persuasive):
http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transc...

The Christmas Day Underwear bomber is an interesting conspiracy to research: (written by a first hand witness, a fellow passenger on the flight):
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-about-flight-253-ha...

If you think our government just couldn't possibly do such a thing, I encourage you to research the OKC bombing:
http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/2891

Comment by Apple on May 13, 2010 at 12:30pm

This topic is an entirely different animal. I agree with Kristian.

Comment by Kris on May 13, 2010 at 12:35pm

The problem with people like you is that, just like with creationists, you have already arrived at your conclusion and no matter what the opposing side says against you, they must be wrong, because it contradicts your conclusion. I don't argue with truthers for the same reason that I don't argue with creationists.
One popular argument for the conspiracy, is that the towers fell at free fall speed. Of course, this completely wrong, and anyone with a timer and a simple physics education could find this out.
Here is a paper dealing with the predicted collapse rates of the towers, and they match very well with what we saw
http://www.crono911.net/docs/Bazant2007.pdf

Comment by Kris on May 13, 2010 at 12:45pm

Dr. Patrick Leman had a very good theory as to why people believe in conspiracy theories (this quote applies to theists too):
"There appears to be a general psychological tendency for people to think that a major or significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful. However, often the explanations offered don't meet the criteria of 'major' - for instance, the death of a public figure by a mad gunman acting alone or a tragic accident. Hence, often people prefer to believe in conspiracy theories that do provide a major cause."

Comment by Peter H. Boling on May 13, 2010 at 1:06pm

I will respond to the Bazant, Greening, et al PDF in more detail later. It does not represent sound reason, logic, math or science.

You do realize that millions of Christians think atheism is a conspiracy theory right? They think it is part of the global elite's movement to bring in the NWO.

Ad honimem arguments and arguments from personal incredulity (both logical fallacies) may help sway uninformed readers... but I've done my homework, and am extremely logical (some would say to a fault - but I am a computer scientist).

Back to Bazant, Greening et al: http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html (did you read what I posted above, or perhaps you didn't see it due to comment latency)

I will find a more specific link soon, but that paper is woefully inept, and has been expertly shown to be so.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page