"First off let me state that I thought 9/11 Truthers were "crazy" in the claims they made. It wasn't until I saw an Alex Jones video no it and did the wtc7 research that flags started going off in my head."
I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else is somehow brainwashed or incapable of critical thinking (not that you said those things either). Just to be clear, what I am suggesting is that you guys are ignoring some pretty basic facts and questions. In some cases, such being persuaded by the Alex Jones video, you're basing your conception of the truth on a piece of media that somebody has produced specifically to lead you to the conclusion you now hold. Alex Jones videos aren't arbitrary, unbiased documentations of fact - they're making a very specific argument, and as such they ignore, distort, and mispresent things to make their point appear stronger.
I actually enjoy Michael Moore for his humor and gusto, but they guys reporting and investigating is crap. I say this as an avowed liberal and longtime Bush critic that agrees with most of Moore's points - but I still know he's blowing a lot of smoke.
It seems that fans of Jones and all the other 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry people don't apply any standards or burden of proof. One such very popular video from the conspiracy industry (and it is an industry, there are hundreds of books, websites, videos - people really do make money from selling conspiracy ideas, and if you don't believe that, then I fail to see how you are willing ot believe our own government killed thousands of its citizens on purpose on the off chance that it would drum up publiuc support for Iraq) is called 'Loose Change,' and has been so hiliriously debunked and shown to be shoddily constructed and deceitful that it amazes me that people still take any of this stuff seriously. I suggest watching 'Loose Change,' after which I'll direct you to the frame by frame debunking guide - the film covers most of the conspiracy angles that have been mentioned so far.
The fact that conspiracists call themselves the "truth movement" is very annoying to me. These people aren't interested in the truth. If they were, they would conduct solid and exhaustive research with objectivity in mind. They are not searching for any kind of truth, they are manipulating facts and information in any way possible in order to substantiate a conspiracy which they already believe exists. That has nothing to do with any kind of truth.
"However, how would a simple fire cause the building to collapse perfectly at free-fall speeds?"
The whole 'free fall speeds' stuff is straight out of the conspiracy stuff. Simply put (and I'll include a link), it has been shown repeatedly that the building was structurally different and much different in terms of size than those around it, and was significantly weakened by falling debris and mulptiple very hot fires. It didn't free fall, nor did it come down in a fashion consistent with controlled demolition. There are hundreds of quotes from emergency personel and others that day that could literally see the building sagging and slumping from the structural stress it was under - hence the evacuation of the building and the area around, fortunately resulting in casualties. The conspiracy sites offer none of this information.
Please, have a look at this:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Go towards the bottom where they walk through step-by-step why the idea that it fell "symetrically" like a controlled demolition is patently false. Most of the page also addresses in far greater detail the oft-cited "Silverstein" angle of the conspiracy. The information takes what conspiracists say, and progressively shows how it is misrepresenting by omission and distortion what actually happened in order to support their idea.
In addition - this goes back to my earlier question. There is numerous data on this event. Why has not one engineer stood up and said "yep - controlled demolition right there?" Or a controlled demolitione expert for that matter.
Not one person with actual expertise can look at the same evidence that conspiracy advocates say is plain as day and come to the same conclusion that they do? Is every engineer on the planet, every demolitions guy, in on the conspiracy as well? Please ask yourself these questions. The simple answer is that engineers and experts think the 'controlled demolition' idea is nuts and the conspiracy theories do not hold up to scrutiny from people that actually know what they're talking about.
"Also, why, days before the attacks were there something like millions of dollars in purchases in air liner stock(or something like this)? Also, Larry Silverstein happened to, that year, buy a major increase on his insurance for WTC7?"
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
This link will thoroughly explain the comletely erroneous idea that forknowledge somehow manifested in the markets. And non that note, think about this is in real world terms for a moment: so thousands of airline company stockholders got some kind of secret email or warning that air travel was going to tank out for a while? How come all airline stocks didn't take a hit? How come tourism and hotel stocks didn't slump in accordance with restricted travel? And really, with all these additional folks being warned, what is our conspiracy size up to now? More than hundreds of thousands? The slightest amount of critical thinking just lays this stuff to waste.
And for the Silverstein thing (whatever your source was about "re-insuring is just plain wrong): http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
It's interesting to note that Silverstein, as a typically stingy billionare, wanted to insure the towers for much less than he ended up doing and had to compromise with his financeers to a higher amount. Like I said before, its hilarious that conspiracy forumlators think that insurance and properties worth billions of dollars is really worth it for the owners to just destroy for a payout. That's not how money works on a large scale - its frankyl a little ridiculous that they even put this accross.
Why would he go to the trouble of securing the deal, and then turn around and agree to destroy his material holdings? A man with his experience (or really any experience) would know that his finances would then be tied up in disputes, lawsuits, and rebuilding efforts for years, over the course of which he could have made much more borrowing and investing against his actual holdings. Insurers don't just handle people a check for a few billion dollars and tell them best of luck. This is not how the real world works.
"Supposedly Alex Jones predicted 9/11 right before it happened, although I don't know as I have only been recently turned on by his stuff."
I'm sure he said he did. What a genius - why didn't he try harder to warn us then? This is the same guy who suggested Bohemian Grove was the height of some eveil one-world cult when in fact its just a bunch of wealthy old geezers, musicians and professors getting loaded out in the redwoods and putting on plays.
You can also find quotes from this guy after the Patriot Act Reknewal stating that we would be living under a facist police state inside of six months. Yet somehow, democracy continues despite his, uh, expertise. I realize you enjoy the guy's videos, but I find him to be a joke. His work is entirely dependent on fear, hystrionics, and misrepresentation of facts to support his ideas. Interestingly, this is the kind of BS he accuses pretty much everybody else of employing.
"Personally, I don't want 9/11 to have been caused by governments. Alex Jones has stated he WANTS to be wrong about his assertions."
If he really believes that, then why doesn't he do some closer investigating himself? Nearly all the so-called "evidence" he presents in his video is debunked emperically all over the web, and he offers no real substantial evidence for his theory besides the usual coincidence, distortion, circumstantial insinuation, etc. If he wishes he were, wrong, he's not trying very hard to find out if that's actually the case.
It's easy to make a few bucks from selling people a massive and sinister government conspiracy and making them feel as if their privelage to some special and secret knowledge in an "us against them" struggle of valiance with a corrupt system. It's not so easy to make money by admitting the facts of the truth - which are absolutely overwhelming in every respect - which is that we suffered a terrible terrorist attack in which many people died, and it was partly due to our own policy and intelligence failings. Hard to make a really nifty internet video out of that one, let alone attract hits for your conspiracy website.
"I'll take a look at that thermite website, I skimmed it and it looks very noteworthy. Too bad some independant website doesn't put an explanation by one side and the rebuttal by the other. That'd make everything nice and easy."
Thanks for keeping an open mind. Nearly all of the debunking websites directly address the claims made on conspiracy websites, videos, articles, etc. Conspiracy stuff feeds off each other, so at this point they all pretty much say the same thing. The debunkers are responding directly to conspiracy ideas, and explain them in detail while showing that they're false or dishonest. In this sense, any debunking website is going to have both sides of the story.
I have yet to come accross a conspiracy website that does things in this fashion - for the most party they suggest that debunkers and anybody that questions the conspiracy are in on it, neo-conservative bastards, or otherwise out to get them. Not much in the way of facts though. Including the rebuttal of the Popular Science article - which admittedly attacks the most whacky conspiracy theories, but nonetheless was not fundamentally disproved in any way.
I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else is somehow brainwashed or incapable of critical thinking (not that you said those things either). Just to be clear, what I am suggesting is that you guys are ignoring some pretty basic facts and questions. In some cases, such being persuaded by the Alex Jones video, you're basing your conception of the truth on a piece of media that somebody has produced specifically to lead you to the conclusion you now hold. Alex Jones videos aren't arbitrary, unbiased documentations of fact - they're making a very specific argument, and as such they ignore, distort, and mispresent things to make their point appear stronger.
I actually enjoy Michael Moore for his humor and gusto, but they guys reporting and investigating is crap. I say this as an avowed liberal and longtime Bush critic that agrees with most of Moore's points - but I still know he's blowing a lot of smoke.
It seems that fans of Jones and all the other 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry people don't apply any standards or burden of proof. One such very popular video from the conspiracy industry (and it is an industry, there are hundreds of books, websites, videos - people really do make money from selling conspiracy ideas, and if you don't believe that, then I fail to see how you are willing ot believe our own government killed thousands of its citizens on purpose on the off chance that it would drum up publiuc support for Iraq) is called 'Loose Change,' and has been so hiliriously debunked and shown to be shoddily constructed and deceitful that it amazes me that people still take any of this stuff seriously. I suggest watching 'Loose Change,' after which I'll direct you to the frame by frame debunking guide - the film covers most of the conspiracy angles that have been mentioned so far.
The fact that conspiracists call themselves the "truth movement" is very annoying to me. These people aren't interested in the truth. If they were, they would conduct solid and exhaustive research with objectivity in mind. They are not searching for any kind of truth, they are manipulating facts and information in any way possible in order to substantiate a conspiracy which they already believe exists. That has nothing to do with any kind of truth.
"However, how would a simple fire cause the building to collapse perfectly at free-fall speeds?"
The whole 'free fall speeds' stuff is straight out of the conspiracy stuff. Simply put (and I'll include a link), it has been shown repeatedly that the building was structurally different and much different in terms of size than those around it, and was significantly weakened by falling debris and mulptiple very hot fires. It didn't free fall, nor did it come down in a fashion consistent with controlled demolition. There are hundreds of quotes from emergency personel and others that day that could literally see the building sagging and slumping from the structural stress it was under - hence the evacuation of the building and the area around, fortunately resulting in casualties. The conspiracy sites offer none of this information.
Please, have a look at this:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Go towards the bottom where they walk through step-by-step why the idea that it fell "symetrically" like a controlled demolition is patently false. Most of the page also addresses in far greater detail the oft-cited "Silverstein" angle of the conspiracy. The information takes what conspiracists say, and progressively shows how it is misrepresenting by omission and distortion what actually happened in order to support their idea.
In addition - this goes back to my earlier question. There is numerous data on this event. Why has not one engineer stood up and said "yep - controlled demolition right there?" Or a controlled demolitione expert for that matter.
Not one person with actual expertise can look at the same evidence that conspiracy advocates say is plain as day and come to the same conclusion that they do? Is every engineer on the planet, every demolitions guy, in on the conspiracy as well? Please ask yourself these questions. The simple answer is that engineers and experts think the 'controlled demolition' idea is nuts and the conspiracy theories do not hold up to scrutiny from people that actually know what they're talking about.
"Also, why, days before the attacks were there something like millions of dollars in purchases in air liner stock(or something like this)? Also, Larry Silverstein happened to, that year, buy a major increase on his insurance for WTC7?"
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
This link will thoroughly explain the comletely erroneous idea that forknowledge somehow manifested in the markets. And non that note, think about this is in real world terms for a moment: so thousands of airline company stockholders got some kind of secret email or warning that air travel was going to tank out for a while? How come all airline stocks didn't take a hit? How come tourism and hotel stocks didn't slump in accordance with restricted travel? And really, with all these additional folks being warned, what is our conspiracy size up to now? More than hundreds of thousands? The slightest amount of critical thinking just lays this stuff to waste.
And for the Silverstein thing (whatever your source was about "re-insuring is just plain wrong): http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
It's interesting to note that Silverstein, as a typically stingy billionare, wanted to insure the towers for much less than he ended up doing and had to compromise with his financeers to a higher amount. Like I said before, its hilarious that conspiracy forumlators think that insurance and properties worth billions of dollars is really worth it for the owners to just destroy for a payout. That's not how money works on a large scale - its frankyl a little ridiculous that they even put this accross.
Why would he go to the trouble of securing the deal, and then turn around and agree to destroy his material holdings? A man with his experience (or really any experience) would know that his finances would then be tied up in disputes, lawsuits, and rebuilding efforts for years, over the course of which he could have made much more borrowing and investing against his actual holdings. Insurers don't just handle people a check for a few billion dollars and tell them best of luck. This is not how the real world works.
"Supposedly Alex Jones predicted 9/11 right before it happened, although I don't know as I have only been recently turned on by his stuff."
I'm sure he said he did. What a genius - why didn't he try harder to warn us then? This is the same guy who suggested Bohemian Grove was the height of some eveil one-world cult when in fact its just a bunch of wealthy old geezers, musicians and professors getting loaded out in the redwoods and putting on plays.
You can also find quotes from this guy after the Patriot Act Reknewal stating that we would be living under a facist police state inside of six months. Yet somehow, democracy continues despite his, uh, expertise. I realize you enjoy the guy's videos, but I find him to be a joke. His work is entirely dependent on fear, hystrionics, and misrepresentation of facts to support his ideas. Interestingly, this is the kind of BS he accuses pretty much everybody else of employing.
"Personally, I don't want 9/11 to have been caused by governments. Alex Jones has stated he WANTS to be wrong about his assertions."
If he really believes that, then why doesn't he do some closer investigating himself? Nearly all the so-called "evidence" he presents in his video is debunked emperically all over the web, and he offers no real substantial evidence for his theory besides the usual coincidence, distortion, circumstantial insinuation, etc. If he wishes he were, wrong, he's not trying very hard to find out if that's actually the case.
It's easy to make a few bucks from selling people a massive and sinister government conspiracy and making them feel as if their privelage to some special and secret knowledge in an "us against them" struggle of valiance with a corrupt system. It's not so easy to make money by admitting the facts of the truth - which are absolutely overwhelming in every respect - which is that we suffered a terrible terrorist attack in which many people died, and it was partly due to our own policy and intelligence failings. Hard to make a really nifty internet video out of that one, let alone attract hits for your conspiracy website.
"I'll take a look at that thermite website, I skimmed it and it looks very noteworthy. Too bad some independant website doesn't put an explanation by one side and the rebuttal by the other. That'd make everything nice and easy."
Thanks for keeping an open mind. Nearly all of the debunking websites directly address the claims made on conspiracy websites, videos, articles, etc. Conspiracy stuff feeds off each other, so at this point they all pretty much say the same thing. The debunkers are responding directly to conspiracy ideas, and explain them in detail while showing that they're false or dishonest. In this sense, any debunking website is going to have both sides of the story.
I have yet to come accross a conspiracy website that does things in this fashion - for the most party they suggest that debunkers and anybody that questions the conspiracy are in on it, neo-conservative bastards, or otherwise out to get them. Not much in the way of facts though. Including the rebuttal of the Popular Science article - which admittedly attacks the most whacky conspiracy theories, but nonetheless was not fundamentally disproved in any way.