SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

It would seem Channel 4 have had a series of films about the crashing of the world trade centre, the pentagon, and flight 93. I just want to know your thoughts on what happened that day, and how the hijackers were brainwashed into thinking it was a good idea.

After watching Flight 93 (which brought a tear to my eye), I was amazed at how heroic the people on board were.

Discuss.

I personally could care less about WHO did the acts, just that it was a sad day, and there were some good heros.

From: Richard
…and how the hijackers were brainwashed into thinking it was a good idea.

religion

(I think anyway, unless it wasn't Muslim terrorists that hijacked the planes…I really haven't followed anything on the story)

Right is relative to your ends.

We don't know whats gone on. The Government Covered it up poorly so theres ideas flying about everywhere.

We will never know what actually happened on that day.

Indeed, as Richard says, there was another movie about it on today. It's title is very creative: The World Trade Center.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

As to ToF saying that The Government 'Covered it up poorly' I agree with that. It seems that the Government may have tried to start the Wars to divert attentions of the conspirators.

Naum, I didnt mention any wars or w/e because it just asks for patriotics to come on here and preach, so I left my reply open for interpritation.

From: Torrent of Flame
Naum, I didnt mention any wars or w/e because it just asks for patriotics to come on here and preach, so I left my reply open for interpritation.

Where did I say that you mentioned wars?

Science can fly you to the moon, religion can fly you into buildings.

From: NaumanAkhlaQ
Where did I say that you mentioned wars?

I wasnt speaking literally. I was saying I chose not to say that because I didnt want to be flamed, I was just giving you a heads up for when the patriotic people turn up who think Iraq was a good idea.

From: Harry


I personally could care less about WHO did the acts, just that it was a sad day, and there were some good heros.

I was hoping you had grown up since the whole ian thing. Obviously I was too unrealistic.

The hijackers were the most faithful people on those planes.

From: Laur€ns
Science can fly you to the moon, religion can fly you into buildings.

Just wait a couple of years they will have religion bombing space sations

It is too hard to hide a conspiracy from the world over such a long time. I do belive terrorists did it.

Depends on ones brain to know the truth of 9/11.

@Harry: Grow up please.

Let's stop flaming Harry, shall we?

On-Topic: I agree with Zevs, if this was a conspiracy then they would never be able to hide it for this long.

From: Zyt3x
Let's stop flaming Harry, shall we?

On-Topic: I agree with Zevs, if this was a conspiracy then they would never be able to hide it for this long.

I think there hasn't been enough flaming, 2 posts telling him to grow up…

I just want to counter people who point to nuclear weapons or gas chambers as 'proof' of science being evil too. Nobody does those things in the name of science, nobody says "For science!" as they walk onto the battlefield. You must be careful not to confuse science with politics.

Science is completely morally neutral. If you want to do good, science gives you incredible tools to do awesome good for the world. If you want to do evil, science gives you weapons to unimaginable evil.




But as those planes flew into the buildings, from the cockpits you could hear one phrase being spoken: Allahu Akbar.

Its interesting to think how they thought they were doing good for their religion. Do you think that they were brainwashed into doing it? Or just felt that way throughout life?

Richard, I'm going to answer your question with a short newspaper article if you dont mind, I think its well written and I'm sure you wont be bored reading it.

To all britions, the author of this will be appearing on Newsnight at 22:30 tonight.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/15/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety1

A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane's exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.

That is precisely what a modern "smart missile" can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today's smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?

In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.

The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner's boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until… oblivion.

Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there's no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That's the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.

How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.

The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker's wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.

The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man's resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn't mind being blown up. He'd make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

It's a tall story, but worth a try. You'd have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.

Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?

There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.

Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

Richard Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science, University of Oxford, and author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow.

tl;dr :D!

lol, and what about the 9/11s happening in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan everyday? th, th, th…..

From: Zyt3x
Let's stop flaming Harry, shall we?

On-Topic: I agree with Zevs, if this was a conspiracy then they would never be able to hide it for this long.

Don't be so naive. The government have the power to stop anyone who tries to leak anything.

The American government are all-powerful. They can easily make up a lie about how you tried to blow some shit up, plant a load of stuff and have you tried and found guilty of treason and locked up in Guantanamo Bay by next week.

Lets be serious. They can do anything.

From: Torrent of Flame
Don't be so naive. The government have the power to stop anyone who tries to leak anything.

The American government are all-powerful. They can easily make up a lie about how you tried to blow some shit up, plant a load of stuff and have you tried and found guilty of treason and locked up in Guantanamo Bay by next week.

Lets be serious. They can do anything.

Oh really? You know about all those Top-Secret weapons and stuff like that? They've all been leaked at some point.

From: Richard
I think there hasn't been enough flaming, 2 posts telling him to grow up…

Not only in this thread ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Oh hey look it's 9/11.

From: Yakman
I just want to counter people who point to nuclear weapons or gas chambers as 'proof' of science being evil too. Nobody does those things in the name of science, nobody says "For science!" as they walk onto the battlefield. You must be careful not to confuse science with politics.

Science is completely morally neutral. If you want to do good, science gives you incredible tools to do awesome good for the world. If you want to do evil, science gives you weapons to unimaginable evil.




But as those planes flew into the buildings, from the cockpits you could hear one phrase being spoken: Allahu Akbar.

Um… Religion was not the cause for 9/11 attacks. Theirs absolutely no way 14 cavemen from afghanistan that live in caves, could make it the USA, then go on 5 different planes then "hijacking" them and crashing them in 5 specific locations on the same day. Unless it was also an inside job.

Zeitgeist and Loose Change pretty much prove it was a setup.

Also, Flight 93 never crashed into the Towers, it never left the airport..

kingarabian, read the newspaper article I posted please and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But for now you've just flat-out denied my claim without any evidence.



As for you people who say its a setup, you're pretty much asking me to believe that almost every government in the world is lying to me. I simply wont be able to believe that unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence.

For now I think its much more likely that you're stiring up a conspiracy theory in the same way that moon-landing-deniers, creationists, holocaust-deniers, people who say they've been abducted by aliens, climate-change-deniers and people who like crop-circles do.

From: Yakman
<snip>

As for you people who say its a setup, you're pretty much asking me to believe that almost every government in the world is lying to me. <snip>

For now I think its much more likely that you're stiring up a conspiracy theory in the same way that moon-landing-deniers, <snip> and people who like crop-circles do.

Erm, no. I'm saying that there is no irrefutable evidence either way so be left to make your own decisions.

And the governments do lie. Do you think they would get in power if they told everyone the truth? No.

There are conspiracy theorists about everything, there is no irrefutable evidence for anything in this world..

Believe what you will, I have made my decision on what I think really happened.

From: Torrent of Flame
Also, Flight 93 never crashed into the Towers, it never left the airport..

Hmm? Didn't it crash…

Well here is my opinion on the flight 93:

This is what I really think. This plane crashed a approximately 1 hour after the last plane which hit the pentagon.

If I was in the government and 3 planes had already crashed, I would be thinking there might be some more coming. They most likely got all the info on those flights that they could and matched up the names of the passengers; *I heard that a stewardess reported the seat numbers of the hijackers*.

Now they were getting the info on all flights in the air and I believe flight 93 may have had a name like the other hijackers even though that person might not have been a hijacker. I believe that they got this info and took care of it by shooting down the plane, which I believe was the right thing to do and that is what I would have ordered in the same situation.

They either have a choice of letting that flight crash into another landmark or take it down. Even if there weren't any terrorists on that plane, i still would consider those people heroes. They had their lives taken for a security threat.

Tell me your ideas or anything I can clear up, No Flaming.

~King of the Nites

From: King of the Nites
<snip> *I heard that a stewardess reported the seat numbers of the hijackers*.

<snip> which I believe was the right thing to do and that is what I would have ordered in the same situation.

<snip> They had their lives taken for a security threat.

Tell me your ideas or anything I can clear up, No Flaming.

~King of the Nites

The idea is that the plane didn't crash with people on it. Flight 93 landed in another airport and was evacuated, then a plane that was called Flight 93 crashed. The plane number of Flight 93 is still recorded as flying, not destroyed like two other planes which crashed were, Flight 11 and another plane.

Also, the stewerdess' got it wrong, they were not the same seats, the names were wrong (ie the 'hijakers' were reported but 9 of them were confirmed alive. A statement was released saying that the identities were not actually confirmed, and these terrorists were not on the casualties records)

No flaming, this is intelligent (as intelligent as conspiracys can be) discussion.

From: Torrent of Flame
The idea is that the plane didn't crash with people on it. Flight 93 landed in another airport and was evacuated, then a plane that was called Flight 93 crashed. The plane number of Flight 93 is still recorded as flying, not destroyed like two other planes which crashed were, Flight 11 and another plane.

Also, the stewerdess' got it wrong, they were not the same seats, the names were wrong (ie the 'hijakers' were reported but 9 of them were confirmed alive. A statement was released saying that the identities were not actually confirmed, and these terrorists were not on the casualties records)

No flaming, this is intelligent (as intelligent as conspiracys can be) discussion.

Wait so why would the people that got evacuated not mention anything about it(or did they)? And did anyone die other than from the crashes on the Towers and Pentagon? I am a little slow on this stuff :p.

From: Yakman
kingarabian, read the newspaper article I posted please and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But for now you've just flat-out denied my claim without any evidence.


As for you people who say its a setup, you're pretty much asking me to believe that almost every government in the world is lying to me. I simply wont be able to believe that unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence.

For now I think its much more likely that you're stiring up a conspiracy theory in the same way that moon-landing-deniers, creationists, holocaust-deniers, people who say they've been abducted by aliens, climate-change-deniers and people who like crop-circles do.

Theres no need for me to post evidence atm. Google "9/11 fraud" or Youtube "9/11 fraud". If you knew more about Islam then its pretty obvious religion had nothing to do with 9/11. Its all political.

From: King of the Nites
Wait so why would the people that got evacuated not mention anything about it(or did they)? And did anyone die other than from the crashes on the Towers and Pentagon? I am a little slow on this stuff :p.

Well this is a conspiracy theory so no irrefutable evidence but they were told to keep to secrecy, iirc. I mean comeon, the FBI say keep quiet, you will :P

And well the crashes were where the deaths occured.

From: Torrent of Flame
Well this is a conspiracy theory so no irrefutable evidence but they were told to keep to secrecy, iirc. I mean comeon, the FBI say keep quiet, you will :P

And well the crashes were where the deaths occured.

Wait so was the 'fake' 93 crash a coverup? If so, for what? I am not putting 2+2 together right now.

From: King of the Nites
Wait so was the 'fake' 93 crash a coverup? If so, for what? I am not putting 2+2 together right now.

The crash that hit the pentagon was a cover-up to show the people that it was a foreign terrorist attack.

I'm sure the government is strong enough to hide such a thing to the rest of the worlds. And for the people that say that the government leaked all other secrets, how do you know that? Because if they have secrets that didn't leaked, than we don't know anything about them:).

Personaly I keep al posibilty's open, it could be the government aswel as the religion. Religion has proven earlier in history what it can do to humans. Anyone remembering what they did in the middle ages? They have the power to brainwash people, although it seems harder since internet has been released:)

Flight 93 hit one of the towers. 'Flight 77 hit' the Pentagon iirc.

Theres so many conflicting ideas from the government, the FBI say different stuff to the CIA who say different stuff to the Government. Its all a mess.

Flight 93 was a coverup as in the plane didnt hit the tower, the government just said it was Flight 93. They did it so they could invade Iraq or clear some debts or something, you know. The only people who would know are the people could have set it up.

From: kingarabian
Theres no need for me to post evidence atm. Google "9/11 fraud" or Youtube "9/11 fraud".

I've done exactly that and googled "9/11 fraud". The first result was a blog that was mostly made up of youtube videos. The bits that were not videos were totally unsuppported. (they didnt cite their sources, so for all I know, they could have made it up)

I should mention that I have a deep distrust of videos. Evidence of this kind should be presented in a paper or book and should appeal to academic audiences as they have the expertise to scrutinise it effectivly. This is very similar to how creationists cant publish their work in a proper scientific journal, so they publish it on websites or popularising books that are aimed at the general public. In other words, its propaganda.

From: kingarabian
If you knew more about Islam then its pretty obvious religion had nothing to do with 9/11. Its all political.

Oh really? I think I know more then you think.

Its a very difficult challenge to convince someone to kill themself for your cause, but religion that job so much easier.

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.


Islam teaches that you'll survive your own death, that is what allowed the hijackers to fly the plane into the skyscraper, because they believed they wouldnt die! Islam was the source of the hijackers courage.
Islam teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

Of course, Islam contradicts itself and also teaches nice things like peace and learning. Most of the muslims in the world ignore the nasty things and just follow the nice ones.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

From: Torrent of Flame
Erm, no. I'm saying that there is no irrefutable evidence either way so be left to make your own decisions.

There are conspiracy theorists about everything, there is no irrefutable evidence for anything in this world.

That is not how logic and reason work.
If theres two conflicting viewpoints with no evidence for either of them, the truth does not have to lie somewhere in the middle.

Because you the conspiracy theorists have made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
"the necessity of evidence always lies with the person who lays charges."

There is no reason to believe in anything which has no evidence, so I will not believe in the 9/11 fraud hypothesis.
(However, I've asked kingarabian if he can provide me with evidence, so if he does I may change my mind in the future)

From: Torrent of Flame
Believe what you will, I have made my decision on what I think really happened.

Well this is very intresting, the whole point of a debate is to convince people that you're point of view is correct. But here you're saying that convincing people doesnt matter and that you're not going to try to convince me?
Maybe I've misinterpreted your words, but to me that sounds like an admision of defeat.

From: Torrent of Flame
And the governments do lie. Do you think they would get in power if they told everyone the truth? No.

America a democracy with a free press. Any such lie like this would be found out by reporters, they would sell much more copies if they found it out so it is in their intrests.
Another part of your conspiracy theory is that there is no freedom of press, which is something else I simply cannot believe as the effects of that would be obvious (The western world becomes a dictatorship)

Of course governments lie about stuff like lowering taxes, and they 'lie' about national security issues, but lying about 9/11 is in a completely different league.

From: Yakman
<snip>

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

Hitlers reign over the Nazi's. The soldiers were normal soldiers and they were brainwashed by Hitler that what they was doing was correct. Ok, maybe the SS were a bit more sadistic in the first place but again generally normal people. These people were brainwashed by the Nazi regime?

From: Yakman
<snip>

That is not how logic and reason work.
If theres two conflicting viewpoints with no evidence for either of them, the truth does not have to lie somewhere in the middle.

Because you the conspiracy theorists have made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
"the necessity of evidence always lies with the person who lays charges."

There is no reason to believe in anything which has no evidence, so I will not believe in the 9/11 fraud hypothesis.
(However, I've asked kingarabian if he can provide me with evidence, so if he does I may change my mind in the future)


Well this is very intresting, the whole point of a debate is to convince people that you're point of view is correct. But here you're saying that convincing people doesnt matter and that you're not going to try to convince me?
Maybe I've misinterpreted your words, but to me that sounds like an admision of defeat

However the two conflicting view points are the extremes both way. It was a setup and planned or it was terrorists. There seem to be no other ideas of what it was, so therefore the answer will have to lay within those two ideas, no?

And there is a lot of evidence saying that it wasn't terrorists. I think the one that makes me laugh the most was that a passport of one of the 'terrorists' was found in the rubble after the plane collapsed. It survived the 1100F burning of the Jet Fuel (which miraculously melted the Steel core of the WTC which melts at 3000F), yet Paper can survive?

From: http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Jet Fuel or Kerosene burns at about 1100, which wouldnt have melted the steel (575 degrees Celsius = 1067 degrees Fahrenheit), I got the 575 from a good 20 minutes of Googling about Jet A fuel Kerosene. Now this couldn't melt low grade steel, and the steel in the WTC was exposed to temperatures exceeding 3500F for other 3 hours as it should be for High Grade steel. People say that the steel melted under the Jet Fuel, but the Jet Fuel would have burnt off almost instantly on impact, like when you throw White Spirit or something on a fire it flares for a few seconds and then dies. Put that in perspective, the Jet Fuel wouldnt have still been there after Hours. Now ok, so the steel was weakened by the fire, but then it would have snapped off the top of the tower, like with the fire in Madrid in a skyscraper, a big fire took off the 10 floors but it didnt make the building collapse. Planes have hit buildings before, and the only buildings ever to collapse by a fire are WTC North/South and WTC 7.

There is evidence supporting this as a SetUp, you just have to have an open enough mind to believe that such a feat can be obtained and carried out.

And no, I was not admitting defeat, you know that if I am wrong, I will admit defeat, as I have before. I hadn't seen you reply so I was just summing up my ideas.

From: Yakman
<snip>

Of course governments lie about stuff like lowering taxes, and they 'lie' about national security issues, but lying about 9/11 is in a completely different league.

From: Yakman
I've done exactly that and googled "9/11 fraud". The first result was a blog that was mostly made up of youtube videos. The bits that were not videos were totally unsuppported. (they didnt cite their sources, so for all I know, they could have made it up)

I should mention that I have a deep distrust of videos. Evidence of this kind should be presented in a paper or book and should appeal to academic audiences as they have the expertise to scrutinise it effectivly. This is very similar to how creationists cant publish their work in a proper scientific journal, so they publish it on websites or popularising books that are aimed at the general public. In other words, its propaganda.






Oh really? I think I know more then you think.

Its a very difficult challenge to convince someone to kill themself for your cause, but religion that job so much easier.

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.


Islam teaches that you'll survive your own death, that is what allowed the hijackers to fly the plane into the skyscraper, because they believed they wouldnt die! Islam was the source of the hijackers courage.
Islam teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

Of course, Islam contradicts itself and also teaches nice things like peace and learning. Most of the muslims in the world ignore the nasty things and just follow the nice ones.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.



That is not how logic and reason work.
If theres two conflicting viewpoints with no evidence for either of them, the truth does not have to lie somewhere in the middle.

Because you the conspiracy theorists have made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
"the necessity of evidence always lies with the person who lays charges."

There is no reason to believe in anything which has no evidence, so I will not believe in the 9/11 fraud hypothesis.
(However, I've asked kingarabian if he can provide me with evidence, so if he does I may change my mind in the future)




Well this is very intresting, the whole point of a debate is to convince people that you're point of view is correct. But here you're saying that convincing people doesnt matter and that you're not going to try to convince me?
Maybe I've misinterpreted your words, but to me that sounds like an admision of defeat.




America a democracy with a free press. Any such lie like this would be found out by reporters, they would sell much more copies if they found it out so it is in their intrests.
Another part of your conspiracy theory is that there is no freedom of press, which is something else I simply cannot believe as the effects of that would be obvious (The western world becomes a dictatorship)

Of course governments lie about stuff like lowering taxes, and they 'lie' about national security issues, but lying about 9/11 is in a completely different league.

Islam teaches if you do Jihad or in other words kill your enemy for the sake of god that cause harm to you, then you will go straight to heaven. However those "hijackers" did not do any Jihad for the following reasons:

1. You wont go to heaven for Jihad when you kill innocent civilian's.
2. America did not strike Afghanistan untill after 9/11, so it should not be considered an enemy.
3. Taliban are extremist muslims, they go beyond what muslims believe, and they know the rules of Jihad pretty good.

So either Taliban did an epic fail, or it was the most likely inside job.

Gf intelligent debate.

From: kingarabian
Islam teaches if you do Jihad or in other words kill your enemy for the sake of god that cause harm to you, then you will go straight to heaven. However those "hijackers" did not do any Jihad for the following reasons:

1. You wont go to heaven for Jihad when you kill innocent civilian's.
2. America did not strike Afghanistan untill after 9/11, so it should not be considered an enemy.
3. Taliban are extremist muslims, they go beyond what muslims believe, and they know the rules of Jihad pretty good.

So either Taliban did an epic fail, or it was the most likely inside job.

Your whole post smacks of a 'no-true-scotsman' fallecy.

1. IIRC this was justified with that those people who died were not innocent as they supported America, and since America is an enemy (see point 1) it was allowed. Its a wierd justification, I dont agree with it, but thats what the jihadists said.
2. The problems in the middle-east with Isreal and Palastine are motivated by religion. America helps Isreal a lot and many muslims who feel a sense of community with other muslims hate America because it hurts their muslim 'brothers'.
3. Extream muslims go beyond what muslims believe? I'm sorry but to me that doesnt make sense. Could you explain again?


lol at your false dilemma at the end there.

Its obvious to me that you're just a conspiracy theorist, all you types love to use fuzzy logic.



To all rationalists, if you want to judge peoples thinking a good, cheap way is to educate yourself in logical fallecies. They are pretty simple to remember and understand, you'll find them invaluable when cross-examining people.

Broken my 1337 posts now..

Its a big conspiracy. Just watch some 911 conspiracy videos and you will be shocked how it shows that their own goverment would do such a thing.

It was all a big coverup to support going to Iraq for the oil.

From: Yakman
Your whole post smacks of a 'no-true-scotsman' fallecy.

1. IIRC this was justified with that those people who died were not innocent as they supported America, and since America is an enemy (see point 1) it was allowed. Its a wierd justification, I dont agree with it, but thats what the jihadists said.
2. The problems in the middle-east with Isreal and Palastine are motivated by religion. America helps Isreal a lot and many muslims who feel a sense of community with other muslims hate America because it hurts their muslim 'brothers'.
3. Extream muslims go beyond what muslims believe? I'm sorry but to me that doesnt make sense. Could you explain again?


lol at your false dilemma at the end there.

Its obvious to me that you're just a conspiracy theorist, all you types love to use fuzzy logic.



To all rationalists, if you want to judge peoples thinking a good, cheap way is to educate yourself in logical fallecies. They are pretty simple to remember and understand, you'll find them invaluable when cross-examining people.

Calm down. You make things bigger then they should be. America was not an "enemy" to Islam at that time. Infact its connection with the arab world was better then ever.

Lets make some things straight:
If you want to say religion was a cause for this, then do so. But dont say Islam did it, and meant for it.

IF those terrorists did "hijack" those planes and crashed them into the towers, then in our terms they go to hell fire.

And no, im using my knowledge from my religion which is Islam. I know more then you think you know. Your probably an atheist. Its funny how hard atheists work to disapprove god, and blame religion for everything. Keep debating, but nothing will come out of it.

From: kingarabian
Calm down. You make things bigger then they should be. America was not an "enemy" to Islam at that time. Infact its connection with the arab world was better then ever.

I think you'll find it was.

Arab != Islam

Have you not seen pictures of Palastinians burning the American flag?
The situation in the middle-east is extreamly relevant to 9/11

Obviously you dont hate America because you live there and it would be wierd, but there are many middle-eastern people, calling themselves muslim, who hate America because of its connection with Isreal.
Are you going to try to tell me they are not real muslims?

From: kingarabian

Lets make some things straight:
If you want to say religion was a cause for this, then do so. But dont say Islam did it, and meant for it.

All I've ever said in this thread is that religion was the root cause. Since Islam is a religion, it contributed, but I'm not trying to single out Islam as anything special, its just another religion.
The hijackers happened to be muslims, but if the situation was very different, they could have been Christians or Jews too.

The only reason I'm trying to counter is that you're trying to convince me that real muslims would never do that.

From: kingarabian

IF those terrorists did "hijack" those planes and crashed them into the towers, then in our terms they go to hell fire.

This is the problem, not all muslims believe the same things.
Of course, you're going to believe they're going to hell because you live in America and you would find it difficult if you believed otherwise.
But if you lived in Palastine, you would almost certainly believe they were going to heaven to be rewarded as martyrs.

Which version of Islam is correct? The one which says they're going to hell, or the one which says they're going to heaven.

Both sides can quote from the muslims holy book, it only serves to confuse.
Non of you have any way of deciding except by saying "This is my faith".


Its the same with the question of is America the enemy.
American muslims say it is not, Palastinian muslims say it is. Who is right?

From: kingarabian

And no, im using my knowledge from my religion which is Islam. I know more then you think you know. Your probably an atheist. Its funny how hard atheists work to disapprove god, and blame religion for everything. Keep debating, but nothing will come out of it.

I dont know why people always do this.
I'm only debating you for some fun, or to pass the time, or whatever reason I felt like that day.

Am I debating you to try to change the system? No.
If I wanted to do that, I would continue to picket, petition or do some other thing through the democratic process to change things.




As of this post, I havent seen any evidence for 9/11 conspiracy yet.

Also, I fail to see how my logic is fuzzy.

From: Torrent of Flame
Hitlers reign over the Nazi's. The soldiers were normal soldiers and they were brainwashed by Hitler that what they was doing was correct. Ok, maybe the SS were a bit more sadistic in the first place but again generally normal people. These people were brainwashed by the Nazi regime?

I wouldnt use the word 'brainwashed'. (in fact I havent used it up til now)
I would prefer 'persuaded' or 'convinced'.

But yes, I can see why you would draw a parallel between facists and religion.
In fact the word "islamofascist" has been coined in the last few years.

From: Torrent of Flame
However the two conflicting view points are the extremes both way. It was a setup and planned or it was terrorists. There seem to be no other ideas of what it was, so therefore the answer will have to lay within those two ideas, no?

Well we have to look at the evidence, it is entirely possible that one side is completely wrong.
Also, its possible that both those options are wrong and third thing is correct.

(this is an example of a false dilemma logical fallecy)

From: Torrent of Flame
And there is a lot of evidence saying that it wasn't terrorists. I think the one that makes me laugh the most was that a passport of one of the 'terrorists' was found in the rubble after the plane collapsed. It survived the 1100F burning of the Jet Fuel (which miraculously melted the Steel core of the WTC which melts at 3000F), yet Paper can survive?



Jet Fuel or Kerosene burns at about 1100, which wouldnt have melted the steel (575 degrees Celsius = 1067 degrees Fahrenheit), I got the 575 from a good 20 minutes of Googling about Jet A fuel Kerosene. Now this couldn't melt low grade steel, and the steel in the WTC was exposed to temperatures exceeding 3500F for other 3 hours as it should be for High Grade steel. People say that the steel melted under the Jet Fuel, but the Jet Fuel would have burnt off almost instantly on impact, like when you throw White Spirit or something on a fire it flares for a few seconds and then dies. Put that in perspective, the Jet Fuel wouldnt have still been there after Hours. Now ok, so the steel was weakened by the fire, but then it would have snapped off the top of the tower, like with the fire in Madrid in a skyscraper, a big fire took off the 10 floors but it didnt make the building collapse. Planes have hit buildings before, and the only buildings ever to collapse by a fire are WTC North/South and WTC 7.

There is evidence supporting this as a SetUp, you just have to have an open enough mind to believe that such a feat can be obtained and carried out.

I hope you dont mind if I quote from a website I've found.

From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

You must wonder, if they really did set it up, wouldnt they be more careful so it wouldnt be found out in such a simple way like this?



I do have an open mind (read: accepting of new ideas), but I also have a sceptical mind.
If you only have an open mind, you'll have no way of telling the good ideas from the bad. You need a firewall of critical thinking too.

Yakman, I can see that the steel could infact melt, but then why would the whole tower collapse inwards? Surely the whole of the tower's steel structure would heat up to beyond 1800F?

The whole idea of the steel melting is very skeptical, there are experts saying different things about the situation, so I apologize for using that as an argument, as it is in dispute by people who are experts in their field.

I appreciate the comment on open mind, but why are you so skeptical to accept it was set up, but have taken up the idea it was terrorism instantaneously? If you was skeptical you would look at the evidence either way and see there is no way to prove or disprove efficiently either way in the argument.

i was too young that day to really understand the horror of what happened. as i look back on it today, i realize that this was probably the most horrible thing that has happened in the 21st century.
all i remember from that day is having a little child tantrum because my tv show was interrupted :D lol

HOLY CRAP DUDE BIONICLES WERE AWESOME. a


So… What if they made Al-Queda themed bionicles? Who would get one to throw it into lego buildings?

I think the Jews and the Aliens teamed up and disguised themselves as a terrorist group. The aliens jammed the radar and the gay liberal Jewish media made the gays use their gay voodoo and crash the planes into the towers so that they could finally kill JESUS and the AMERICAN DREAM for good.

WHY DID THEY DO IT?!

Because they don't want you to own guns, they want to go against GODS word and have disgusting sex with each other, and they HATE APPLE PIE.

WTF are you talking about? The jews would never team up with aliens for the sole fact that aliens think that yamakas are miniature space crafts capable of destroying some kind of home planet. Also, aliens are huge fans of disgusting sex.

I totally agree with you that you're an idiot, but I have to say that you're an idiot. It was obviously the Amish. They are way jealous of our fancy new fangled machines, so they figured they would crash airplanes into some buildings. What the news doens't tell you is that the Amish admitted to doing the attack, but we just ignored them since they smelled like corn.